list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It doesn't say whether an unfiltered call (0 required params) returns every table in every database, whether results are truncated or paginated, or what permissions are needed. Only the fact that both tables and views are returned is extra behavior disclosed.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The phrase 'under the full SQL names' is slightly awkward but every clause carries meaning.

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?

The tool is simple: two optional params and no output schema, so the agent must rely on the description for return shape, which it only partially supplies ('full SQL names'). Listing tables and views is conveyed, but result shape and behavior on unfiltered calls remain unspecified.

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%, so both optional filters ('schema', 'database') are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing about the filters' syntax or scoping behavior beyond the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List tables and views') and adds scope with 'full SQL names', which separates it from list_schemas and list_databases. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is distinguished from, but the resource wording is enough for an agent to tell them apart.

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?

'to use in execute_sql' implies a workflow (find names, then query), which is useful implied usage. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_objects or describe_table, nor on when filters should be applied.

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