list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool is 'cheap' and 'tells you what exists,' which are useful traits. However, it does not mention potential limits (e.g., pagination, schema coverage), auth requirements, or any side effects. For a read-only listing tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and included objects, and the second provides a clear usage directive. Every word contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (tables with descriptions), when to use it (first), and why (cheap). It does not describe the return format in detail, but that is less critical for a discovery tool whose primary purpose is inventorying available data assets.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and output scope. No additional parameter detail is needed.

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 tool's function: listing every table, view, and materialized view in the mart schema(s) along with descriptions. The phrase 'Call this first' distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as an initial discovery step, contrasting with describe_table (for specific tables) and run_query (for arbitrary queries).

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 explicitly advises to call this tool first because it is cheap and reveals what exists. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool names imply that describe_table is for deeper details and run_query for specific queries, but this is not stated.

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