list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that views are included and that the database parameter defaults to the connection's configured database. It does not mention permissions, output sorting, or whether system tables are included, but the 'list' wording strongly implies a read-only 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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds an Args section only where it adds value. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the essential details: what is listed, the target database, and the default behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in not routing the agent to sibling tools for related tasks like listing databases or describing a specific table.

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 only defines 'database' as a nullable string with default null and 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter means 'Database to list tables from' and clarifying the default behavior. This goes beyond the schema, though it could still specify expected format or accepted values.

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?

States a specific action ('List') and resource ('tables (and views) in a database'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like list_databases and describe_table because it explicitly targets tables/views within a database.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to list tables or views from a database. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_databases to discover available databases or describe_table for individual table details.

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