aism_db_tables

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the description's extra value is real: it discloses that certain tables hold credentials (users, user meta, API keys) and are non-queryable, plus explicit permission and version prerequisites. It stops short of describing output ordering or pagination, so not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the blocked-table caveat, then prerequisites. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only, one-param list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it enumerates the returned columns, flags the blocked rows, and states auth requirements. Only minor gaps remain (output ordering, whether blocked tables are still listed with row counts).

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 100% and the single optional 'site' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the reference to aism_sites. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('List this site's database tables') and enumerates the returned fields (engine, rows, data/index size, core flag). It is clearly distinct from the singular aism_db_table, though it never explicitly contrasts with it; the plural/scope difference lets an agent infer separation without opening schemas.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent to use this to inspect the schema before querying, by warning that query_blocked tables cannot be queried, and it states prerequisites (database:read, manage_options, companion 1.6.0+). However, it names no alternative (aism_db_table, aism_db_query), so when-to-use vs siblings is left to inference.

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