mysql_show_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It only states the basic action ('Show all tables') without disclosing any behavioral details such as whether it requires an active connection, if it queries information_schema, or potential error conditions (e.g., no database selected). It does not even explicitly state that it is read-only, though 'show' implies so. This is minimal beyond the name.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's action without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the core function. However, it does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., whether it returns a list of table names, any additional metadata) or mention any prerequisites beyond the current database context. Given the lack of an output schema, the description could be more explicit about the output format.

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%: the only parameter 'alias' is fully described in the schema ('optional, uses default if omitted'). The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond referencing the 'current MySQL database', which aligns with the alias/default connection but does not enhance understanding of the parameter itself. Thus the baseline 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 'Show all tables in the current MySQL database' uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('all tables'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mysql_describe_table (describes a specific table) and mysql_list_databases (lists databases). It explicitly mentions the scope 'current MySQL database', which aligns with the tool's name and function.

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 its use (when you want to list tables in the current database) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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