list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List all tables' without noting that it is a read-only operation, whether it returns table names only, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be part of a database management 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, with the main action in the first sentence and a compact args list. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, and there is no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it highly scannable and effective.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the core function, but it lacks context about return values (though an output schema exists) and does not mention any behavioral nuances or prerequisites. Given the presence of an output schema, the lack of return details is partially compensated, but the description still feels minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described in the schema ('The schema name' and 'The catalog name'). The description repeats this information in an 'Args' section without adding any extra meaning, such as formatting, constraints, or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 'List all tables in a schema' with a specific verb and resource, and the title 'list_tables' reinforces this. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_catalogs, list_schemas, and describe_table by focusing on tables within a given catalog and schema.

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 usage when you need to list tables, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools like list_catalogs and list_schemas are not mentioned, so guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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