list_tables

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the name by promising row counts and index capabilities in the result, and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it never states that it is non-destructive or whether counts are computed live versus cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and returned fields are delivered immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what comes back (tables, row counts, index capabilities), which is the main thing an agent needs to know. It stops short of explaining result ordering or size, but for a zero-parameter enumeration tool that is a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to explain, and it correctly avoids inventing filtering options.

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 all tables') plus the scope ('in the open MongrelDB database') and the payload returned ('row counts and index capabilities'). It is clearly distinct from describe_table in spirit, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the enumeration-vs-detail split.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of describe_table, database_overview, or semantic_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The discovery use case is only implied by the word 'List'.

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