mcp_get_tables

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

No annotations are provided, but 'list' clearly signals a read-only inspection operation with no mutation risk, so the safety profile is implicit. The description adds the 'with sizes' detail but says nothing about permissions, cost, or how sizes are measured or formatted.

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 short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and the returned content (tables plus sizes), which is sufficient to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on return format, but the complexity is low.

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 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented as 'Site id (see list_sites)', so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (list) and resource (database tables) plus the returned detail (sizes), which is enough to separate it from siblings such as mcp_list_options or mcp_optimize_tables. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus adjacent tools like mcp_optimize_tables or mcp_get_health, and no prerequisites beyond the required site id. The agent must infer the intent entirely from the tool name.

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