yearning_list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds limited value. It mentions the API endpoint but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination.

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 sentence plus API line, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words; highly concise.

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 read annotations and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple listing tool. Lacks only minor details like response format, which is optional.

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?

Despite schema having descriptions for database and source_id, the tool description does not explain parameters. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description fails to compensate.

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 tables under a specified data source and database, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like yearning_list_sources and yearning_list_databases.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for listing tables but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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