get_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination and its rationale ('Paginated to prevent token overflow') and names the fields returned, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return structure beyond field names, or any other side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, one for purpose and one for pagination rationale. Every word adds value and the key action is front-loaded.

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 list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is adequate. It gives the purpose and return metadata, but without an output schema it could have been slightly more specific about the exact response shape.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only general context about pagination, which loosely maps to page and limit, but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Get a list of all tables') and specifies the returned metadata (type, comment, engine, row count). It distinguishes from siblings like describe_table by emphasizing 'all tables', though it does not explicitly contrast with search_tables or get_schema.

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: use this tool when you need a list of all tables and their metadata. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling like describe_table or search_tables, so it falls short of a 5 but provides enough contextual clarity.

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