list_tables

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the tool is safe/read-only, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by noting the tool retrieves 'all' tables unless filtered by IDs, providing scope and optional filtering behavior. No contradictions 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes useful use cases. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand purpose and behavior. The output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed. It is complete for a listing tool.

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 schema covers the sole parameter (ids) with a clear description: 'Optional list of table IDs to filter by'. The tool description reiterates 'optional ID filtering' but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve all Metabase tables' with a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_table' and 'list_databases'. It also explains use cases: 'discover available tables, explore database schema, or get metadata about specific tables.'

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('discover available tables, explore database schema, or get metadata about specific tables'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With sibling tools like 'get_table' and 'list_databases', a brief exclusion would make it a 5.

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