list_tables

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying results are limited to tables and views the login can read, which is not covered by annotations. It does not discuss pagination or output shape, but the safety profile is already handled.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every part of the sentence contributes scope or resource 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?

For a simple zero-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the listed objects and the access scope. Minor details such as whether schemas are included or how results are ordered are absent, but not critical for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description need not explain arguments. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List the tables and views." It also scopes the result to objects the current login can read. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as describe_table or run_query, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 access-scoped phrasing implies discovery use before describe_table or run_query, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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