list_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the listing action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, performance characteristics, or what 'relations' excludes (e.g., functions, operators). Minimal behavioral insight.

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 covering the core function. It is concise but could benefit from front-loading the primary use case (listing relations in the database) before enumerating types.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks context on pagination, filtering, default behavior (e.g., does it exclude system schemas?), and what the returned data looks like (no output schema). The agent may not understand how to effectively use the parameters.

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%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema—e.g., it does not clarify the pagination behavior via limit/offset or the effect of include_system.

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 tool lists 'tables, partitions, views, sequences, foreign tables, indexes, and other relations,' specifying the resource and action. It is distinct from siblings like list_schemas or get_relation_details, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_schemas, get_relation_details, or search_catalog. An agent lacks context for tool selection.

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