get_list_of_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention pagination behavior and the ability to filter fields, but it omits critical traits such as whether the operation is read-only, default return size, sorting, and error handling. Additionally, the description references a 'fields' parameter not present in the schema, further reducing transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with clear front-loading of the main purpose. However, the inclusion of a 'fields' parameter that does not exist in the schema is an unnecessary and potentially misleading addition, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of only three parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return format, the database filter mechanism, the meaning of 'fields', or any defaults/behavior when no parameters are supplied. This is a list tool where users likely need to know pagination details and field selection, but the description only scratches the surface.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains limit and before/after as cursor-based pagination, but does not detail the format or semantics of the cursor values or pagination order. It also introduces 'fields' and 'database' parameters that are not in the schema, confusing the parameter model rather than clarifying it.

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 the tool returns a list of tables, optionally filtered by database, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_by_fqn (single table) or get_table_owners_by_fqn. However, the mention of a database filter is not reflected in the schema, creating some ambiguity about the actual scope.

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 explicit instructions for using cursor-based pagination (limit, before/after) and mentions a fields parameter, but does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are given, leaving the when-to-use context implied rather than explicit.

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