list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does state the filter semantics: 'When provided, only tables in this schema are returned,' plus the location scope. It doesn't cover edge behaviors like default schema inclusion, permissions, or whether views are excluded, but for a read-only listing these are minor gaps.

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 purpose line is front-loaded followed by a compact, structured Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields, and the parameter documentation is warranted given zero schema descriptions.

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, 3-parameter listing tool with an output schema provided, the description covers inputs and behavior adequately. The main omission is an explicit statement that it returns only tables (not views) and what happens when schema is omitted, though the schema default of null suggests all schemas.

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 0%, but the description compensates by documenting all three parameters, including the non-obvious semantics that item is a warehouse or SQL endpoint name/GUID and that schema is a filter. Without this, the bare property names would leave the agent guessing about item's meaning.

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 opening line states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'List SQL tables on a warehouse or SQL Analytics Endpoint.' This clearly separates it from siblings like list_views (views), list_schemas (schemas), and list_warehouses, so an agent can distinguish the target resource without inspecting the schema.

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 required parameters (workspace, item) and the optional schema filter imply the call pattern, and the scope is stated. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_views or list_schemas, nor any exclusion criteria.

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