list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the default-schema behavior and implies a read-only query, but it does not disclose whether views are included, what happens for invalid schema names, or whether the current connection is used.

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 compact sentence that conveys both the main purpose and the important default behavior with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is that 'default SCHEMA' is not defined or cross-referenced with get_current_schema or switch_schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the optional 'schema' parameter selects the schema to list and that null/omission means the default schema, but it does not define how the default schema is determined or specify naming/case/quoting rules.

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 a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('所有表'), and scopes it to a given schema or the default schema if none is given. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like count_tables or execute_sql, so it stops short of a 5.

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 behavior for the optional schema parameter: if omitted, the default schema is queried. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as count_tables or execute_sql, nor any exclusions.

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