list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'searches with wildcards automatically', a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no results found. Some transparency, but incomplete.

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 docstring with parameter lists, which is structured but slightly verbose. The examples are helpful. It could be trimmed slightly, but overall it's clear and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description explains inputs well and includes the return format ('list of matching tables with descriptions'). However, it lacks details on the exact structure of each returned item (e.g., fields of the table objects). Mostly complete but could be more specific.

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 fully. It does: explains pattern with examples, module with specific value mappings, and limit with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it searches for PeopleSoft tables/records by name pattern or module. The verb 'search' and resource 'tables/records' are specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'describe_table' (which gets details on a specific table) and 'search_records' (which might search across records).

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 provides parameter details (pattern, module, limit) that imply when to use each, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'search_records' or 'describe_table'. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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