List Tables

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it lists 'all tables and views,' which conveys the scope, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are formatted, whether system tables are included, or any error behavior. Only minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, containing no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., just names vs. metadata) or edge cases like missing schemas. Given the lack of annotations and output documentation, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter detail, describing 'schema' as 'Schema/owner name'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('all tables and views in a schema'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_schemas (which lists schemas) and describe_table (which examines a single table). It precisely conveys the function and scope.

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 description implies usage by stating it lists tables and views in a schema, which signals when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_schemas to see available schemas' or 'use describe_table for details on a single table.' Thus, usage is implied but not clearly contrasted with other tools.

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