list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but does not reveal important details like schema filtering behavior, whether system tables are included, or the output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that could interact with various database states.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description lacks completeness given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., table names only, metadata), how the schema parameter affects results, or any behavior beyond the bare listing. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's direct response.

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?

The single optional parameter 'schema' is already fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), including its default value 'dbo'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'List tables in the database.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_schemas or describe_table, though it does not explicitly differentiate edge cases (e.g., list_programmable_objects).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools such as describe_table or query, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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