extract_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, requirements, and return format. It only says 'Returns table data as arrays', which is vague about the structure and does not mention whether the PDF is modified, if it requires a text-based PDF, or if there are limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 concise, using two short sentences without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately states the output type, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 (one input, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding but omits critical details about the array structure (e.g., array of rows, array of cells) and does not clarify how it differs from similar tools. The lack of an output schema makes these details more necessary, so the description falls short of being fully informative.

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 100% of the parameter descriptions (the only parameter 'file' is fully described as an absolute path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('tables from a PDF'), and the output type ('arrays') further clarifies the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pdf_to_excel or get_page_text by focusing specifically on table extraction, making the intent unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of conditions (e.g., 'use for PDFs with text-based tables') or exclusions (e.g., 'for scanned PDFs, use OCR first'). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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