get-tables-in-catalogs-schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but says nothing about permissions required, pagination or result limits, behavior on nonexistent schemas, or whether nested/child schemas are traversed. It also doesn't clarify whether tables includes views or only base tables.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, and the docstring-style Args block is the only structural overhead. Slightly verbose formatting, but no wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the format of the one parameter is covered. Against that, the tool has no annotations and the description omits error behavior, result-scope limits, and routing guidance relative to its four sibling tools.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as 'array of strings' in the schema, so the description does add value by specifying the 'catalog.schema' dot-notation format and that it is a list. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether three-part names are accepted, how multiple pairs combine in one call, and what happens on malformed entries.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a list of all tables') scoped to 'the given catalogs and schemas', which implicitly contrasts with name-based siblings like find-tables-by-name. It doesn't explicitly name or distinguish itself from get-tables-details, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (that you must first know catalog/schema names via get-catalogs and get-schemas-in-catalogs), and no statement about when to prefer find-tables-by-name or get-tables-details instead. Usage can only be inferred from the parameter shape.

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