extract_paper_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool saves to vault, uses region crop, captures caption+area, notes the impossibility of sub-image separation due to vector text, and specifies the naming convention. This provides substantial behavioral context.

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 includes technical details like ADR-018 and a thorough explanation of the extraction limitation, which adds length. It is structured with bullet points for args, but could be more concise by moving some technical rationale to a note.

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 complexity (PDF extraction, vault storage) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers storage location, method, limitation, and parameter semantics. It addresses the essential aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: paper_id is explained as arXiv ID, slug as vault directory name with default use of arxiv_id. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the description does not explicitly mention that slug is optional.

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 tool extracts tables from cached PDFs based on captions, saves them as PNGs to the vault, and specifies the storage location. It distinguishes from siblings like extract_paper_figures by mentioning the specific method (region crop) and technical limitation (vector text).

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 implies usage for extracting tables from cached papers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_paper_figures or when to avoid it. No context on prerequisites or conditions.

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