list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It accurately states that the action lists tables, but it does not mention read-only semantics, whether system/views are included, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 one short sentence with no filler and leads with the action. It is appropriately concise, though it omits context that would slightly extend it without harming conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema defining the return value, and the description does not state what information is returned (e.g., table names only, schema, row counts). It also fails to clarify the database/server scope, especially given the optional server parameter)Skip. For a tool with minimal annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to predict the full invocation result.

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%, and the only parameter, 'server', is already described in the input schema with its default value. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all tables in the database') and is distinguishable from siblings like describe_table, query, and list_servers. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether 'the database' means the current database or all databases on a server, which introduces minor ambiguity.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_servers, show_databases, or describe_table. It neither states prerequisites nor excludes scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role solely from its name.

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