show_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and discloses caching behavior (auto-refreshes cache, first-time auth requirement), pattern matching case-insensitivity, and return structure. It stops short of mentioning potential rate limits or data freshness, but overall provides solid behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USE THIS WHEN, RETURNS, HOW IT WORKS, Parameters, Examples). Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity (3 optional parameters, hierarchical output, caching) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, and examples. It lacks explicit comparison to siblings but provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter with behavioral notes (e.g., pattern matching is substring and case-insensitive) and concrete examples, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 the verb 'Browse' combined with 'databases, schemas, and tables' clearly defining the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_table' (which focuses on a single table) and 'find_tables' (likely search-based) by emphasizing pattern-based exploration of the hierarchy.

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 explicitly states 'USE THIS WHEN: You want to explore what databases/schemas exist, or need to filter by exact patterns.' It provides an SQL analogy and examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though the sibling context makes the differentiation implicit.

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