Access tables and queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Lists' wording is consistent with all of them. The description adds useful context about the Access file type and the relationship between code and schema, but no additional operational behavior such as auth or system-table filtering, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 three sentences: a concrete front-loaded scope, a brief rationale for why the tool matters, and a crisp scope constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema information.

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 an output schema present, full parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description covers the remaining contextual needs: what the tool returns conceptually, why it exists, and that it applies only to Access files. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly with just file_path and optional filters.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents file_path, include, and include_system in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of include by naming tables, queries, and relationships, but it adds no new parameter-level semantics or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the resource ('an Access database'), and spells out the concrete output categories: tables with columns, saved queries with SQL, and relationships. It clearly positions the tool as a schema catalog rather than a code-reading tool, distinguishing it from siblings like xlide_list_modules and xlide_read_query.

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 explains why this tool is needed in a real workflow: an .accdb is an application, its VBA is written against tables/queries, and reading modules alone would only show half of it. It also gives a clear boundary with 'Access files only.' It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative, so it does not quite earn a 5.

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