list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the listing is scoped to a 'tenant-authorized schema,' which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention edge cases such as empty results, errors for non-existent schemas, or any limits on the number of returned items. Since this is a read-only listing operation, the absence of side-effect warnings is acceptable, but the description could be more explicit about read-only behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and scope efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

While an output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values, the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters that are unexplained. It also does not clarify how 'schema' and 'source' relate to each other or to the tenant context. An agent would need external knowledge or experimentation to call this correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for either parameter. 'schema' is only mentioned in the scope phrase, but not defined as a parameter. 'source' is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details, leaving the agent to guess what values are expected.

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') within a defined scope ('tenant-authorized schema'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_schemas (lists schemas) and list_data_sources, and even mentions that views are included, which is not obvious from the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives like get_table_metadata, describe_table, or list_schemas, nor does it state conditions that would favor one tool over another. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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