list_tables

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats parameter info (optional schema, include_views default true) but does not mention performance, authentication, or side effects. For a simple listing tool, more transparency about output format or limitations would help.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with no wasted words. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but still functional. It could be more complete by specifying the output format (e.g., list of names) or clarifying if views are included separately. However, with only 2 simple params, it is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what the input schema provides (schema optional, include_views default true). No parameter descriptions in the description itself.

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 lists all tables and views in a schema, with a specific verb (list) and resource (tables and views). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_schemas or 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions optional schema but does not indicate when not to use (e.g., if schema not specified, uses default). Sibling tools like list_schemas exist, but no comparative context.

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