list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that only SELECT-able business tables in the permitted schema are shown, and mentions statistics. However, it doesn't disclose what the statistics contain or pagination behavior beyond the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently packs the verb, resource, scope constraint, and pagination cue, though it is somewhat dense in Chinese.

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?

Adequate for a list tool whose read-only nature is covered by annotations. However, with no output schema, the description omits what the statistics (统计信息) include and the shape of the returned items, leaving an agent guessing about the return format.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by mapping 分页列出 (paged listing) to limit/offset and 允许 schema to the schema parameter, which helps an agent infer parameter purpose beyond bare titles. Yet it doesn't elaborate on each parameter's role individually.

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?

States a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (普通业务表/ordinary business tables), and adds the scope constraint that only SELECT-able tables in the allowed schema are returned, plus statistics. This distinguishes it from describe_table (single table detail) and query (data retrieval), though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus describe_table, query, or explain. The use case (discovering available tables before querying) is only implied by the description's mention of listing tables; no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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