list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all tables' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavior such as whether system tables are included, error handling, or any side effects. The description adds no detail beyond what the name already communicates.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., table names only, fully qualified names, metadata), and it does not clarify whether all tables include system tables. This leaves some gaps for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'schema' and 'database' parameters. The description's phrase 'optionally filtered by schema' aligns with the schema parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'tables in a database', and explicitly mentions the optional schema filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_views and list_schemas, which target different resource types.

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 through its name and phrasing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It would benefit from noting that it covers tables specifically, not views or other objects.

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