docx.tables_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'List all tables' without revealing what the output contains (e.g., table indices, names, metadata), whether it is read-only, or if it handles nested tables or pagination. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not explicitly stated, and other behavioral traits are absent.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is underspecified. While brevity is good, the single sentence lacks crucial context about usage and behavior, making it too minimal for an effective tool definition. It is not appropriately sized because it could add a clause about what 'all' encompasses or what the output is, without becoming verbose.

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 the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least hint at the return format or scope (e.g., 'all tables in the document'). It does neither. The presence of many sibling tools related to tables increases the need for contextual differentiation, which is entirely missing. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter (docId) with a 'Document ID' description, which is straightforward. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is simple, the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantics are needed.

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 'List all tables' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and the tool name reinforces this. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_table_content or table_edit, which also deal with tables. Thus it is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docx.get_table_content or docx.find_empty_table_rows. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or why an agent might choose it over siblings. No context is provided beyond the bare purpose.

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