List Database Tables

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive=false, covering the main behavioral aspects. The description adds that it lists tables and views, which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 composed of two clear and concise sentences. It efficiently states the purpose in the first sentence and a key constraint in the second, with no redundant or ambiguous wording.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It adequately captures the main use case (listing tables/views for a saved connection) and the essential input constraints, making it complete for the tool's simple purpose.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds a semantic nuance by stating that connectionId must be a saved connection and not an ad-hoc string, which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's own description.

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 action (lists), the resource (tables and views), and the context (saved database connection). It also explicitly notes that ad-hoc connection strings are not accepted, which helps distinguish it from potential alternatives.

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 specifies that a saved connection is required and that ad-hoc connection strings are not accepted, providing clear conditions for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the constraints are sufficiently indicative.

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