list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the case-insensitive matching behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not state that this is a non-mutating read, nor anything about result size, pagination, or behavior when the target database is unset.

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 entry is short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated before the argument notes. The Args block is slightly redundant formatting for a single parameter but wastes little space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the sole parameter is documented. The scope (current target database) is stated; only edge-case behavior on empty or missing configuration is unaddressed.

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% and the single 'keyword' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: the keyword is described as optional and case-insensitive, fully covering the only parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists tables in the currently configured Archery target database, with optional name filtering. This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like describe_table or query, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the siblings (describe_table, query, query_history, sql_check). The filtering capability is described, but no context or prerequisites for using this tool are offered.

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