mcp_get_tables

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the action (list) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires admin privileges, or if it has any side effects. The description is minimal.

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?

Description is one sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool returns (list of tables with sizes). Adding details about return format (e.g., 'returns a JSON array of table names and sizes') would improve completeness, but current version is adequate.

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?

Tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter meaning; the empty schema suffices.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all database tables with their sizes. The verb 'list' and resource 'database tables' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mcp_optimize_tables which performs optimization.

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 explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied (listing tables with sizes), but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Given the straightforward nature, it's adequate but lacks depth.

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