list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'all tables' which implies completeness, but doesn't address pagination, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens when database/schema parameters are omitted. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place - 'List' (verb), 'all tables' (scope), 'in a specific database' (context). There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration for this straightforward operation.

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 simple listing tool with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention something about the return format (e.g., 'returns table names and metadata') or typical use cases. The description works but leaves the agent guessing about what exactly gets returned.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'specific database' which aligns with the 'database' parameter but provides no extra context about format, validation, or interaction between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tables in a specific database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_databases' by specifying tables rather than databases, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other table-related tools like 'describe_table' or 'get_table_data'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'describe_table', 'get_table_data', and 'list_databases', there's no indication of when this listing operation is preferred over more detailed or different scoped operations. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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