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. It discloses the fallback behavior for an empty database parameter, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects. Since an output schema exists, return format details are likely covered elsewhere, but the description could add more behavioral 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 operation with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary purpose and an edge case (empty database). The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides only a default value for the database parameter without any description. The description clarifies that an empty value triggers the default configured database, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective, though it could be slightly more explicit about accepting a database name.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'List tables in a database.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases, describe_table, and execute_query by focusing on the enumeration of tables.

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 provides some usage context by explaining the behavior when the database parameter is empty (defaults to the configured database), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_databases or describe_table. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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