list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a 'Summary of all available tables,' which gives some context about the output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence adds value by describing the return format. There's no unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that there's an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations and siblings that might overlap, the description could do more to clarify usage context and behavioral traits. It's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate in this case. It focuses on the tool's purpose and output, aligning well with 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available tables/dataframes with their descriptions.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('tables/dataframes'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_table' or 'describe_table', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. With siblings like 'show_table' and 'describe_table' that might also retrieve table information, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what distinguishes it. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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