list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and the description clarifies that views are included, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or other behavioral details. There is no contradiction with annotations because none are provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 tool with only two required parameters, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. The required 'source' parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on how to discover valid source values, which is especially relevant given the sibling list_data_sources tool.

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 must compensate for both required parameters. It gives partial meaning to 'schema' via 'in a schema', but 'source' is entirely unexplained, leaving a critical required parameter ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables or views in a schema'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The schema-scoped phrasing also helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_data_sources and list_schemas.

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 phrase 'in a schema' implies the tool is used when you need table or view names within a particular schema, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives like describe_table or list_schemas. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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