Tables List Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about row counts, bytes, and quoted name fields, but does not discuss permissions, large-result behavior, or how to control scope beyond the schema parameters.

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 two front-loaded sentences with little waste. The second sentence spends space on output-field details that may duplicate the output schema, but it is still concise.

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 list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and some returned fields. However, it omits pattern behavior, sibling differentiation, and any usage context needed to choose this tool over alternatives like tables_list_views.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the 'pattern' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain pattern matching, optional database/schema filtering, or defaults, so it does not compensate for the remaining parameter ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List tables in a database schema with row counts and bytes.' It also states extra returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as tables_list_views or tables_describe_table, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a listing use case but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to choose between. Sibling tools like tables_list_views and tables_describe_table are not mentioned.

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