tuik_list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'database' is a legacy MEDAS/Biruni link-only resource and that output entries are either dataflow or istab types. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' verb, though it does not cover potential API limitations or pagination.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose and downstream usage, followed by concise argument details. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity and that an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains the three resource types, the source of theme_id, valid languages, and how returned identifiers should be used, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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 provides 0% description coverage and no enums, but the description fully compensates: theme_id is sourced from tuik_list_themes with an example, lang is constrained to 'tr' or 'en', and resource_type enumerates all allowed values with caveats. This is exactly the semantic detail needed for correct invocation.

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 states a specific action ('List tables under a TUIK theme') and identifies the resource (tables grouped by theme). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying that it lists dataflow entries and istab file downloads, while tuik_search_tables and tuik_list_themes serve different purposes.

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 how to use the results: dataflow_id feeds into tuik_get_data/tuik_download_data, and url into tuik_download_table_file. It also clarifies the legacy 'database' resource type. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like tuik_search_tables, though the theme-based listing context implies it.

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