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 transparently communicates that the call is read-only ('Lista') and that the pattern supports wildcards via the 'OIT%' example. What is missing is how results are returned (a list of table names?), whether errors are thrown for nonexistent schemas, or any pagination/limit 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: verb and object first, optional filter and examples second, nothing that could be removed. It is compact, readable, and the example table codes earn their place by tying the tool to a SAP B1 context.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, this is mostly complete: the description covers what the tool does and the optional filter behavior. The remaining gaps, the lack of mention of the return format and of clear guidance among the sibling list tools, are real but do not prevent an agent from calling it 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds reinforcement with concrete SAP B1 table examples but largely repeats the pattern concept already present in the pattern property ('OITM u OIT%'), providing no additional format, validation, or usage detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a concrete resource ('las tablas de un esquema de SAP B1'), with real SAP B1 table identifiers (OITM, OCRD, OINV) as examples. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_schemas (schemas) and get_table_schema (structure of one table), because the scope is explicitly 'tables within a 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?

The intended use is clear but implied: the agent calls this to enumerate tables of a schema, and the optional pattern filter is stated. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, e.g., 'use list_schemas for schemas' or 'use get_table_schema for a single table'.

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