list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that results are grouped by topic and include what each table holds, which is useful context but not rich behavioral detail beyond that (e.g., pagination or output format absent). This aligns with the moderate bar for read-only list 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint follows immediately. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 read-only list operation with no parameters, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and when to use it. No output schema exists, so no return format is required. The description provides enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics to add. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters since none exist. It does imply a global listing without filters, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List every Knesset table, grouped by topic, with what each one holds.' It specifies a distinct action (list) and resource (Knesset tables), and differentiates from siblings by noting it's a discovery tool to use before describe_table and query.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use: 'Use this to find the right table before describe_table and query.' This names the alternatives and the correct sequence, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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