List Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explaining that 'tables' maps to different entities depending on the backend (collections, keys, indices) and that listing happens in the active database, which helps an agent form correct expectations across stores.

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 front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, and backend-specific terminology with no filler. Every part of the description contributes meaning.

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, read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool, the description together with the schema and annotations covers purpose, scope, and per-call overrides. It does not explicitly describe the output shape or behavior when no active database exists, but the phrase 'list the tables' plus the absence of an output schema makes the expected result reasonably inferable.

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 schema already explains pattern as a glob filter and database as a per-call override. The description adds no parameter-level details, so it does not need to compensate; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List the tables in the active database,' then clarifies the cross-store meaning of 'table' as collections (MongoDB), keys (Redis), and indices (Elasticsearch). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from list_databases or list_connections without requiring agents to open those tools.

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 the scope ('active database') and implies an exploratory listing use case, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as describe_table, get_table_indexes, or list_databases, nor when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the name rather than explicit.

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