cas_tables

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add useful return-shape information (loaded tables with rows/columns vs. unloaded sources) which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, caslib resolution, or result size.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core scoping statement comes first. The parenthetical '(rows, columns)' is slightly clipped and the 'source tables / files' phrasing is a bit loose, but size is appropriate.

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?

With no output schema, the description does double duty and gives a reasonable sketch of what comes back, which is the main thing an agent needs. It still leaves open how the caslib name is resolved and whether results are truncated, so it is adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and it only partially meets it. The note on ``database`` is genuinely informative beyond the bare string type — it only applies to SingleStore caslibs and narrows the listing to that database's tables — but the required ``caslib`` parameter is left completely unexplained.

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?

It names the resource precisely (tables within a single caslib) and splits it into the two meaningful categories, in-memory tables with rows/columns versus unloaded source tables/files. An agent can tell this is a listing/scoping tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings such as cas_caslibs, cas_columns, or sas_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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus cas_caslibs (to discover caslibs), cas_columns (to go one level deeper), or the sas_tables/list_tables alternatives. Usage is only implied by the fact that it enumerates tables, so the agent must infer routing on its own.

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