db_get_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It correctly conveys a read-only enumeration behavior and optional filtering, but it does not disclose details such as whether a connection must already exist, what happens with an invalid schema name, or whether results are limited. It is adequate but minimal.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second efficiently covers both optional filters, making it easy to scan.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core function and the available filters. There is no output schema, but the return value is reasonably implied by the word 'List'. It could be more explicit about default schema behavior, but nothing critical is missing for basic 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that filtering by schema name and object type is possible, adding no extra detail about defaults, formatting, or valid values.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('all tables and views in the database'), so an agent understands what the tool does. It is also distinguishable from sibling tools like db_get_columns and db_get_schema because it targets tables/views rather than schema details or columns, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as db_get_schema, db_get_columns, or db_execute_query. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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