list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that 'database' is optional and 'connection_name' defaults to 'default', but it does not clarify what happens when database is omitted, whether it is a read-only operation, or what errors or edge cases may occur. This is a meaningful gap.

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 and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The Args section is structured, minimal, and every line adds useful information without unnecessary detail.

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 listing tool, the description covers the main purpose and parameters, and an output schema is present so return details are not needed. However, the ambiguity around the optional 'database' parameter and the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools leave it slightly incomplete for confident autonomous selection.

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?

Although the input schema has no property descriptions, the tool description provides an Args section that gives meaning to both parameters: 'database' is the name within the connection and optional, and 'connection_name' has a default of 'default'. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('List all tables') and the resource ('in a database'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_tables or list_databases, but the scope is specific enough.

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: you use this when you want to list tables in a database. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_tables, get_table_info, or list_databases, nor does it mention exclusions. This is adequate but not strong guidance.

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