db_list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that row counts are estimates rather than exact values, which is meaningful for an agent. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or response shape.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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 low-complexity listing tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return content: tables and row-count estimates. It could be slightly more explicit about the database config name versus actual database name distinction, but the schema already covers that.

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 100%, with both database and dbName already documented clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the generic phrase 'specified database', 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 states a specific verb ('列出' / list) and a precise resource: all tables in a specified database, including their row-count estimates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like db_list_databases (databases vs. tables) and db_query (querying vs. listing).

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_query or db_list_databases, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and general wording.

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