list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'This is a read-only operation,' disclosing it has no side effects. It also discloses the exclusion of internal tables and the exact return format. This is good behavioral disclosure for a simple list operation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, return format is given, and the read-only note is appended. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple list tool with no params and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the scope (user tables/views), the exclusion of internal tables, and the exact JSON return shape. Nothing missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't. No gaps.

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 it lists all user tables and views, excluding internal sqlite_* tables. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like describe_table (specific table) and query_database (run 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 clearly implies when to use it: to get an overview of all tables/views. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings is obvious enough. Lacks explicit exclusions.

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