sigma_list_all_input_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it collects errors from individual workbooks/pages rather than failing silently, which is non-obvious. It also describes the return context (workbook, page, element).

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: action, result, and error handling. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy, and the most important statement is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters), and an output schema exists, so return values are already structured. The description supplements by noting error collection, making it adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies since the description doesn't introduce parameter-related confusion or omit any required details.

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 'Scan all workbooks to find input-table elements', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbook_elements by specifying 'all workbooks' and focusing specifically on input-table elements.

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 gives clear context that this tool scans across all workbooks, implying its use for global discovery. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as sigma_list_workbook_elements or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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