list_tables

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only listing but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, the expected output format, or any performance considerations. Minimal transparency beyond the basic function.

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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what it lists and the scope. However, it does not indicate what the output contains (e.g., just table names or more details), but for a list tool this is acceptable.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, and the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('in the public schema'), which clarifies the tool's behavior 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 explicitly says 'List all tables in the public schema'. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('tables'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_iceberg_tables' and 'table_info' by specifying the 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'table_info' or 'list_iceberg_tables'. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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