list_iceberg_tables

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it lists foreign tables, which is read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or other behaviors. The mention of FDW mapping adds context but is not exhaustive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part is necessary and informative.

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 list operation with no parameters or output schema, the description sufficiently explains what and where. It lacks mentions of prerequisites (e.g., FDW set up) or return format, but is generally complete for its complexity.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the schema ('iceberg') and table type ('foreign tables'), clarifying what is being listed beyond the empty schema.

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 lists foreign tables in the iceberg schema via FDW. It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like list_tables and list_iceberg_catalog_tables by specifying the scope (foreign tables, iceberg schema).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for listing foreign tables in the iceberg schema, but lacks exclusions or context about when to use list_tables or list_iceberg_catalog_tables instead.

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