List Connection Tables

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the two-step behavior on providers with schemas and the exact return fields (geometry column, CRS, primary key, kind). This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second delivers key usage and return information. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need exhaustive return details, and it already summarizes key fields. The main workflow (schema handling) is covered. However, the lack of explanation for provider and connection parameters leaves a small gap in complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains the schema parameter in detail (omitting it returns schema list) but provides no guidance for the required provider and connection parameters, leaving them ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'List tables reachable through a saved connection.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connections (which lists connections) and add_layer_from_connection (which adds a layer from a connection).

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?

Provides a clear usage pattern for schema-based providers: 'omit schema to get the schema list first, then pass one.' This gives context on when to use the tool and how to handle schemas, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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