List Tables

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the result is a sorted JSON array of table names and describes pagination behavior with nextCursor. This is valuable context not captured by 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 well-structured with front-loaded main sentence and separate sections for use cases, examples, return value, and pagination. Every section adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior for its simplicity: it lists tables, returns sorted array, and supports pagination. Given the presence of an output schema and no parameters, the description is complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; it correctly omits parameter details. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4.

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 'List all tables in the connected SQLite database.' The verb 'list' and resource 'tables' are specific. The examples and usage guidelines differentiate it from siblings like getTableSchema, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a <usecase> section explicitly stating when to call the tool (e.g., ALWAYS call this tool FIRST when exploring tables) and provides examples of correct and incorrect usage, demonstrating when to use alternatives like getTableSchema.

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