peaka_list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires a known projectId, instructs the agent to call peaka_list_projects if missing, and tells the agent to persist the chosen projectId across the conversation. This is meaningful operational guidance.

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 appropriately sized: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by two concise, high-value instructions about projectId handling. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the workflow note.

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 description covers the purpose and the projectId prerequisite workflow, which are important. However, since there is no output schema, it does not state what the returned table list looks like or whether it includes metadata. It also does not mention that catalogId and schemaName can be discovered via sibling tools like peaka_list_catalogs and peaka_list_schemas. The description is adequate but has clear informational gaps.

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 only 33%, and only projectId has a description. The description partially compensates by saying 'for a given catalog and schema', mapping to catalogId and schemaName, but it does not explain what these values are, how to obtain them, or what formats are expected. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds limited semantic value beyond them.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all available tables for a given catalog and schema in the Peaka project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like peaka_list_catalogs, peaka_list_schemas, and peaka_list_columns by naming the exact object being listed (tables) and its scoping context.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to get all tables within a specific catalog and schema. It also provides a concrete conditional workflow: if the projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects first and confirm with the user. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like peaka_list_columns.

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