count_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the default-SCHEMA fallback behavior, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or whether the count includes only tables or also views. The output schema covers return shape, but safety and edge-case behavior remain undocumented.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and immediately covers the optionality. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

For a simple counting tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the default case adequately. It could be slightly more complete with explicit read-only/error behavior or sibling differentiation, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the one parameter's semantics: a specified SCHEMA is counted directly, while an unspecified one falls back to the default SCHEMA. This adds meaning beyond the raw nullable schema property.

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 states the exact verb and resource: count the number of tables under a specified SCHEMA, and clarifies the default when none is provided. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables, which would return table names rather than a count.

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 gives clear context for the schema parameter (specified vs. default schema) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_tables or execute_sql, and names no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than fully articulated.

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