get_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires an open document, side effects, or error conditions. Adequate for a straightforward read operation but lacks depth.

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 sentence of 12 words, conveying all necessary information without waste. It is front-loaded and earns every word.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It could explicitly mention it operates on the current document, but this is implied by sibling tools. Slightly incomplete but very close.

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 input schema has no parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the output includes row/column counts and cell text, which goes beyond the empty schema. Thus a score of 5 is justified.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all tables' with specifics on what is returned (row/column counts and cell text content). This is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_table or delete_table_row.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of alternatives or context for when this tool should be chosen over others. The simplicity of the tool partially mitigates this lack.

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