pdf_list_tables

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses listing tables with diagnostics and scoping, but does not detail what diagnostics entail or confirm absence of side effects. Minimal but adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage hint. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

With 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main action and usage context. Lacks detail on return value content, but output schema likely compensates. Good but not exhaustive.

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%. Description mentions 'optionally scoped to an outline node' (node_id), but does not explain doc_id or limit. Significant gaps in parameter meaning.

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 it lists Docling-extracted PDF tables with diagnostics, optionally scoped to an outline node. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pdf_read_table and other pdf_list_* tools by focusing on tables.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for table-centric reading before pdf_read_table,' providing a clear workflow sequence. Does not specify when not to use, but the positive guidance is sufficient.

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