list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only says 'List all tables' and gives no information about filtering scope (e.g., all schemas by default), whether views are excluded by default (though the schema hints at it with includeViews=false), or any side effects or performance implications. The description is not misleading but is too sparse to be transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity and that the schema documents its parameters thoroughly, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or any edge-case behavior (e.g., behavior with no tables), and since there is no output schema or annotations, a bit more context could improve completeness.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, nor does it compensate for any gaps. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 'List all tables in a database' uses a clear verb (List) and resource (tables) with scope (in a database). It is distinct from siblings like get_table_schema or create_table, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest sibling tools like list_connections or get_table_schema. The description merely restates the tool's basic function.

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