list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing tables but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with databases.

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 directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a database interaction tool. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use this tool effectively in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'database' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tables in a specific database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_databases' or 'describe' beyond the resource name, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_databases' or 'describe', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a connected database. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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