listTables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the HTTP method ('GET /tables'), required permissions ('tables:read'), and explicitly marking it as read-only. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination behavior, but covers essential operational context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus a bracketed note) with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently includes all necessary additional information (API endpoint, scope, read-only status).

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 list retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, API correspondence, authentication requirements, and safety profile. The only minor gap is lack of information about return format or pagination, which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It adds value by mentioning the API endpoint and scope requirements beyond the empty schema.

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 specific action ('Retrieves a list') and resource ('all Tulip Tables'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'getTable' (singular) and 'listTableRecords' (records within tables). It provides precise scope information.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Retrieves a list of all Tulip Tables') and mentions the required scope ('tables:read'), which provides clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'getTable' or 'listTableRecords', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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