列出表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this corresponds to a GET endpoint, reinforcing read-only behavior, but adds no additional traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or response format behavior. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds the relevant API endpoint for traceability. No wasted words, perfectly sized.

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 list tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the response format or pagination, but given the simplicity and the presence of openWorldHint, this is not a critical gap. Sibling names and schema details fill in remaining context.

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 descriptions cover database (库名) and source_id (数据源 ID), with response_format having enum and default values. The description simply restates '指定数据源、指定库' without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 67%, the description provides marginal added value, so baseline 3 is suitable.

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?

Description clearly states '列出指定数据源、指定库下的表' (list tables under specified data source and database), using a specific verb and resource. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_sources and list_databases by scoping to tables within a given source/database, and also references the API endpoint GET /api/v2/fetch/table.

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 implies when to use it (when needing to list tables for a specific data source and database) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context of sibling tools and the clear scope provide adequate guidance, though not as explicit as naming when not to use it.

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