peaka_list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is redundant. However, it adds useful scoping ('given catalog and schema') and a prerequisite workflow, providing moderate extra context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences: one for purpose, one for usage guidance. No redundant phrases, though it could be slightly more compact. Structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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, and the description covers the core action and a key prerequisite (projectId). However, it omits prerequisites for catalogId and schemaName (e.g., calling peaka_list_catalogs and peaka_list_schemas), and does not mention output format or limits, leaving some 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% (projectId has a description, catalogId and schemaName do not). The description adds that the tool requires 'given catalog and schema' but does not elaborate on format, purpose, or how to obtain these parameters, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('List all available tables') and specifies scope ('for a given catalog and schema'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like peaka_list_catalogs and peaka_list_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?

The description explicitly instructs to call peaka_list_projects first if projectId is unknown, providing a clear usage prerequisite. It does not, however, mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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