list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does note the database is 'read-only', implying this is a safe read operation, but it does not disclose potential edge behaviors like whether views or system tables are included, whether sorting is applied, or any error conditions. The read-only hint provides some context but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no redundant phrases. Every word contributes meaning: 'List' gives the action, 'tables' gives the object, and 'configured read-only database' gives the scope.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with a provided output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, and the output schema can document the return structure. It lacks only a brief note about when to use it in the broader tool workflow, but that is already captured by the low usage_guidelines score.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter explanations because none exist.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('tables available in the configured read-only database'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling query and description tools because it enumerates all tables rather than running a query or describing one table.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_table or run_readonly_query. The context signals list sibling tools, but the description does not reference them or define conditions for choosing this tool over them.

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