List Tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'filtered by access policy', hinting at security behavior, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, what privileges are required, or whether results are paginated. The description is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could be better structured (e.g., front-loaded key info). The brevity is acceptable, though a bit more detail would improve it.

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?

With 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the optional parameters (limit, schema, profile) or any usage context beyond the basic purpose. The tool's complexity demands a richer description.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention the parameters (limit, schema, profile) at all, failing to add meaning beyond the bare schema types. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'tables', specifying the scope 'visible to the current OceanBase user' and the filtering condition 'by access policy'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ob_list_profiles and ob_list_schemas.

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 usage for viewing accessible tables, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ob_describe_table, ob_get_table_schema). There are no when-not-to-use instructions or examples.

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