sql_list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that row counts are included and that views are excluded by default — useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications of row counts on large tables, or result ordering/limits.

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, tightly written sentence that conveys purpose, scope, filtering capability, and one behavioral detail (row counts). Zero wasted words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

This is a relatively simple list tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema (so no return format to document). Given its simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what's listed, row counts included, and optional views. It could add a note about performance on large databases but is otherwise complete for a listing utility.

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 coverage is 100%, so the two parameters (schema, includeViews) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds 'with row counts' context and clarifies views are optional, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List all user tables') and specifies scope ('in the active database, with row counts'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sql_list_stored_procs and sql_inspect_table by being the table-listing tool specifically.

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 — list tables in the active database. It notes views are optional, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like sql_count_and_sample or sql_inspect_table, or when it should NOT be used. No exclusionary guidance given.

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