List tables in schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context about pagination with HANA_LIST_DEFAULT_LIMIT and offset, but does not disclose ordering, whether system tables are included, or other behavioral traits. It provides moderate value beyond 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, focused sentence that gets to the point. It front-loads the main function and includes optional modifiers without excess.

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 full schema and output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about optional schema_name behavior or how it differs from hana_search_tables. The catalog_database parameter is not explained in the description, though the schema covers it. It is a minimum viable description.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, so coverage is 100%. The description adds only a reference to HANA_LIST_DEFAULT_LIMIT for pagination, which is a minor addition. Since the schema already explains the parameters, the description does not significantly enhance semantics.

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 the tool lists tables in a schema, with optional prefix and pagination. It is specific about the action (list) and resource (tables), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like hana_search_tables, stopping short of a 5.

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 usage for enumerating tables in a schema but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It mentions optional prefix and pagination but no exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling set includes hana_search_tables and hana_list_schemas, so more guidance would be useful.

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