list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — that system tables are silently filtered from the result — which the agent could not infer from the schema. It says nothing about connection/auth requirements, result ordering, or failure behavior when no model is open.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the parameter prerequisite. No filler; only slightly thin rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple two-parameter list tool the description covers scope, filtering behavior, and parameter provenance — enough to invoke it correctly, though the absence of annotations leaves the operational profile unstated.

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% (both port and model_id are bare strings), so the description must compensate. It does the most valuable thing by naming list_local_reports as the source of both values, but adds no format hints (e.g., what port looks like, whether model_id is numeric or a GUID).

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+resource: listing tables in the currently open model, and adds a scoping detail (system tables LocalDateTable/DateTableTemplate are filtered out) that distinguishes it from a raw enumeration. Sibling describe_table is not named, so differentiation from it is only implied.

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 note that port/model_id come from list_local_reports establishes a prerequisite workflow (list reports → pick one → list its tables), which is genuine usage guidance. However there is no explicit when-not, and no routing away from describe_table or distill_model_schema for the same modeling data.

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