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 conveys a read-oriented enumeration operation with optional filtering, but does not mention permissions, inclusion of views, or output behavior. The core behavior is clear but not deeply detailed.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated right after.

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 one-optional-parameter listing tool, the description and schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema or annotations, but the missing behavioral details are not critical for basic correct usage.

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%, and the single 'schema' parameter is already documented in the input schema as optional. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the optional filter.

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 directly states a specific action (list) on a specific resource (tables), with an optional schema filter. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_schemas and 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 optional schema filtering implies the main use case: enumerating tables, optionally scoped to a schema. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which sibling tool to choose instead.

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