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. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but the description does not confirm this, nor does it disclose pagination, ordering, permissions, or scope (e.g., all tables vs. within a specific schema). This leaves key behavioral traits unclear.

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 that is front-loaded and free of any filler. It is appropriately concise for the simple action of listing tables, although it could have included parameter details without losing its efficiency.

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 has three optional parameters, no annotations, and is part of a large sibling group with many table-related tools. The description is too minimal to provide complete context for correct invocation, leaving ambiguity about parameter meanings and when to choose this tool over others. The output schema provides return type info but does not compensate for the lack of parameter and usage guidance.

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?

The schema defines three optional parameters with zero coverage in the description. The phrase 'name pattern' is ambiguous and does not distinguish between name_like and table_like, and the database parameter is completely unexplained. The description adds no meaningful information about parameter purposes or relationships.

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's function: 'List database tables'. It is specific about the resource (database tables) and the verb (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_table_columns and list_table_indexes which focus on other database objects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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