Listar tabelas do banco H2

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable operational context beyond the annotations: the embedded H2 database file path, the fact that the application locks the database while running, and the required prerequisite to stop the app before using database tools.

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 two compact sentences, front-loading the table scope and then the critical operational prerequisite. Every sentence carries useful information with no wasted wording.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is listed, where it comes from, the scale and categories, and the essential prerequisite for use.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, and the schema is an empty object. With zero parameters and full schema coverage, the baseline score is 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter-level detail because none exists.

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 specifies the exact resource and scope: tables of the PUBLIC schema in the embedded H2 database, including the file path and categories of tables. This is clear and specific enough to distinguish it from siblings that query or execute SQL, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or use a direct verb like 'list'.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: PJe-Calc locks the database while running, so the application (pjecalc_parar) must be stopped before using database tools. This is strong context for when and when not to call the tool, but it does not explicitly point to sibling alternatives such as db_esquema or db_consultar.

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