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 behavior disclosure. It conveys that the operation is read-only and includes both tables and views, but it does not mention behaviors like whether system schemas are excluded, permission requirements, or behavior on an invalid schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the main behavior is in the first sentence, followed by a minimal Args block. No fluff or unrelated detail is present, and both statements earn their place.

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 low complexity, one optional parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by noting the relationship to list_schemas or behavior when the schema does not exist, but the core invocation information is present.

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. It adds semantic meaning by identifying 'schema' as a PostgreSQL schema name and restating the default value 'public.' Since there is only one optional parameter, this is sufficient compensation despite some redundancy with the schema's default.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all tables (and views) in *schema*.' It clearly identifies what is returned and scopes the operation to a named schema, which also differentiates it from siblings like list_schemas and describe_table without needing extra explanation.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of its siblings, such as list_schemas or describe_table. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites; the only context is the default schema argument, which is not a usage guideline.

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