list_tables

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

注解已提供readOnlyHint=true，描述未增加额外行为透明度，如返回大小格式、是否包含临时表等。描述本身是无害的读取操作，符合注解，未矛盾。但没有提供注解之外的行为信息。

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?

描述仅一句话，信息密度高，无冗余，直接点明功能。

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?

工具简单，一个可选参数，无输出schema，描述足以让代理理解功能。考虑到仅一个参数且覆盖良好，描述完整。

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描述覆盖100%，schema属性schema有描述“可选,只列出该 schema 下的表”。描述本身也提及按schema过滤，与schema信息一致，但未增加更多语义，如schema名称格式、默认行为等。

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?

描述清楚说明了动词“列出”和资源“数据库的所有表及大小”，并提到可选按schema过滤。虽然未显式区分兄弟工具，但功能独特（列出表及大小），与list_views、list_indexes等区分明显。

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?

描述说明了使用场景是列出所有表，并可选按模式过滤。虽然没有明确说何时不使用或替代工具，但上下文暗示这是查询表元数据的工具，与查询数据、管理权限等工具区分明确。

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