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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the scoping detail ('connected database', 'RAG config'), which implies prerequisites, but doesn't mention return format or behavior when the database isn't connected.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, object, and context efficiently.

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 listing operation with only two parameters and strong annotations, the description covers purpose and context well. It does not specify the return format, but that is likely obvious (list of table names), and the existence of lyzr_semantic_model_connect_database as a sibling implies a prerequisite that could be explicitly stated but is inferable.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Database id', 'RAG config id'). The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond restating these parameters, so we rely on the schema's baseline. The wording 'connected database for a RAG config' loosely maps to the parameters but doesn't elaborate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('table names'), and scopes it to 'a connected database for a RAG config'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like lyzr_semantic_model_table_preview (data preview) and lyzr_semantic_model_list_documentation_agents.

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 when to use: when you need table names for a connected database used in a RAG config. It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No other list-table sibling exists, so no alternative is needed.

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