List Project Tables

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: pagination default/max and loop semantics, tableId-as-id-field mapping, and the warning that table IDs go stale after update/append operations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then move logically through pagination, output usage, and a critical staleness warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the IMPORTANT cue highlights the highest-risk behavior.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential return guidance: pagination fields, tableId presence and meaning, and downstream tool requirements. Combined with annotations for safety/idempotence and a detailed input schema, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 71%, and the schema already documents kind, name, limit, offset, projectId, properties, and response_format. The description's mention of filters and pagination defaults mostly restates schema facts rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, though the exact projectId emphasis is useful context.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables/rules in a project') with optional filters, clearly identifying it as the inventory operation among table-related siblings such as get_table, update_table, and delete_table. It also signals its role as the source of tableId values needed by downstream table tools.

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?

Gives clear usage context: optional filters, explicit pagination loop with has_more/next_offset, and the need to re-list after edits that change table IDs. It does not explicitly contrast against a single-table getter, so it falls just short of naming alternatives.

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