list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. The verb '列出' implies a read-only listing operation, but the description does not disclose output format, pagination, error behavior, or whether any library validation occurs. It is minimally transparent but not richly so.

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 short sentence with no redundant words. The operation and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives only minimal context. It does not explain what a 'JSONL 表' is exactly, what the agent should do with the returned list, or how to obtain a valid library value. The ambiguity around 'JSONL' and library selection leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase '库里的' clarifies that the 'library' parameter identifies which library's tables are listed. However, it does not explain valid library identifier formats, whether values come from list_libraries, or how missing/invalid libraries are handled.

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 operation ('列出' / list) and the resource ('JSONL 表' / tables) scoped to a library. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_libraries, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_schema, query, or list_libraries. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen or what prerequisite steps (like selecting a library) are needed.

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