List Tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the effect of include_comments and include_parent_comments, which adds value, but it omits other relevant behaviors such as pagination (limit/offset) or error handling (e.g., missing schema). For a read-only listing tool, this level of transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences communicate the primary purpose and the two most nuanced parameters. There is no redundant language or repetition of the title. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 tool with five parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination parameters (limit/offset) or the required schema_name, leaving the agent to infer them from the input schema alone. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the missing parameter explanations severely limit contextual completeness.

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 all five parameters. It explains include_comments and include_parent_comments but says nothing about limit, offset, or schema_name. schema_name is implied as the required input, but limit and offset remain undocumented. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List tables in a schema.' It goes beyond the title by specifying the optional comment-inclusion behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like list_columns or search_tables, the wording is distinct enough for an agent to infer that this enumerates tables within a given schema.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_tables or list_columns. The description focuses on parameter effects (include_comments) but lacks any context about typical use cases or exclusions. An agent seeing only this would not know whether to pick list_tables or search_tables for a given request.

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