yearning_list_tables

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the API endpoint (GET /api/v2/fetch/table), which provides minor context but no extra behavioral detail beyond what annotations indicate. This is adequate but not rich.

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: two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the API reference is a useful addition. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity, strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention potential pagination or output format details, but these are not essential for a list operation and the output schema likely covers return values.

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 description mentions 'specified data source, specified database' which maps to source_id and database, but this largely repeats the schema descriptions ('数据源 ID', '库名'). The response_format parameter is not mentioned. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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: '列出指定数据源、指定库下的数据表列表' (list tables under a specified data source and database). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like yearning_list_databases (which lists databases) and yearning_table_fields (which gets fields of a 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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it should be used when needing a table list for a given source and database. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided, so it relies on implication.

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