postgres_list_tables

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or side-effect-free, nor does it disclose potential limitations (e.g., whether views are included, permission requirements, or return format). The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but this is not clarified, leaving room for ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence: 'List all tables in the public schema of the PostgreSQL database.' It is concise, avoids redundancy, and front-loads the primary action and scope. Every word contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the function and its scope (public schema). However, it does not describe the return format or any behavior beyond the action, which would be helpful since there is no output schema to clarify what the agent should expect. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly adds no extraneous parameter information, as there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The 100% schema coverage further makes parameter documentation unnecessary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all tables in the public schema of the PostgreSQL database.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables in the public schema'), which distinguishes it from siblings like postgres_describe_table (which describes a single table) and postgres_query/select (which retrieve data).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving a list of tables, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. For example, it does not clarify whether postgres_schema_overview could be used for broader schema information. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.