list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly conveys that this is a non-mutating enumeration, but says nothing about pagination, filtering, permissions, or what the listing contains (names only vs. metadata). Adequate but thin for a schema-less tool.

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?

One compact sentence that leads with the verb and enumerates the resources. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what is returned and whether the connection must already exist. For a simple list tool it is close to sufficient, but an agent cannot tell the return shape or failure mode from this text alone.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'connection' parameter, so the schema already documents the alias/default behavior. The description adds only the environmental context ('connected database') and no extra parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables, views, or collections') plus the scope ('in the connected database'). It distinguishes itself from describe_table and get_schema by being the enumeration tool, though it never names those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like describe_table or get_schema. The only usable signal is the implicit need for an existing connection, which the agent must infer from 'connected database'.

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