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 behavioral burden. 'List all tables' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and gives scope, but the description does not mention permissions, pagination, whether views or system tables are included, or what happens with an empty/missing database.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and scope immediately and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the low complexity, one optional parameter with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around return shape and edge cases, but they are not severe for a simple list operation.

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 single optional database parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the database scoping intent but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: list tables. It also scopes the operation to a specific database, making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_databases or describe_table.

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 when to use the tool by mentioning 'a specific database', but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_databases or describe_table. There are also no exclusions or prerequisite notes.

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