List Allowed Tables

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

The description states the tool is read-only, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the list is cached, whether it reflects live permissions, or what happens if no tables are allowed. Still, for a simple list operation, the read-only disclosure is adequate.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the key information: what is listed and the read-only constraint. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It could mention whether the list is sorted or how permissions are determined, but these are minor gaps. The output schema likely covers the return structure.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. The schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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: listing ClickHouse tables the MCP server is allowed to query. It specifies the verb (list), the resource (ClickHouse tables), and the scope (allowed to query, read-only), which distinguishes it from the sibling query_clickhouse tool.

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 this is a discovery/preflight tool to see which tables are queryable, which is useful before calling query_clickhouse. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, but the read-only qualifier and sibling context make the usage context clear.

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