테이블 목록

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description's added value is limited to noting it includes both tables and views and that schema information is returned. It does not mention return format, pagination, or performance characteristics, which would be additional useful context. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence in Korean that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, achieving high efficiency.

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, read-only annotation), the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns (tables and views with schemas) and no critical information is missing, even without an output schema.

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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0-param tools receive a baseline of 4. The description correctly provides no parameter details because none are 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 lists all tables and views in the database along with their schemas. The verb '나열합니다' (lists) and the resource 'tables and views' are specific, and the scope distinguishes it from siblings like describe_table (specific table) and query (execute 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 tool's usage context is clear: use it to get an overview of all tables and views. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like describe_table or query, so it lacks explicit exclusions. The context is self-evident but could be more direct.

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