list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, which covers safety. The description adds specific output details (columns, select options, link config) beyond annotations, making behavior 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?

A single sentence that is efficient and informative. Every clause adds value: listing tables, columns with specifics, and optional details.

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, parameterless, read-only tool with rich annotations, this description is largely complete. It could optionally mention that it lists all tables, but that is implied. No output schema exists, but the description covers expected return contents.

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 coverage is 100% with no parameters. The description adds meaning about what is listed (name, type, key, select options, link config), which is useful context that the empty schema cannot provide. Baseline is 4 for 0 params; the description elevates to 5.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'tables in the SeaTable base' and explicitly mentions returned details: columns (name, type, key), select options, and link configuration. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_schema or list_rows.

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 this is for overview exploration of table schemas. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since there is a sibling get_schema, an explicit comparison could be beneficial, but the context is clear enough.

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