db_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 behavioral burden, yet it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active connection, whether system tables are included, or what the result shape looks like. For a discovery tool with zero annotation coverage, one sentence leaves real gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain return contents (table names only? schema-qualified?) and connection prerequisites. As written, an agent knows the intent but not enough to call it confidently or interpret the response.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what `connection_id` selects, nor what the optional `schema` parameter does (filter scope? default schema? case sensitivity?), leaving both parameters as bare strings in the schema.

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 and resource ("List tables/views") with the scope qualifier "in the connected database," so the operation is immediately legible. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like db_describe_table, mongo_list_collections, or db_query, leaving the agent to infer which listing tool applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus db_describe_table (column-level detail) or db_query, and no stated prerequisite that a connection must be opened first via open_connection. The agent must infer all routing decisions from tool names alone.

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