whodb_platform_tabular_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: workspace overrides apply per call 'without changing defaults,' which tells the agent that passing workspace is a non-persistent, side-effect-free override. It does not mention pagination behavior or result shape, but that is a minor residual gap against the 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: purpose first, targeting semantics second. The second sentence partially restates the schema's workspace shape, which slightly dilutes it, but there is no filler or hedging.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema documents all 10 parameters, so the description need not explain them. What remains unstated is the differentiator: what makes a file 'tabular' (versus the plain file-listing siblings) and whether results are paginated via limit/offset. For a listing tool in a large sibling set, that boundary should be spelled out.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter — including the nested workspace object and its host/org/project members — is already documented in the schema. The description paraphrases the workspace shape but adds no syntax, precedence, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb plus a precise resource subset: 'List hosted project files that can be used as tabular data.' That qualifier ('can be used as tabular data') meaningfully narrows it against the many sibling list tools like whodb_platform_files and whodb_platform_app_files. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary from the qualifier alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource qualifier rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this when you need files usable as tabular data.' There is no explicit when-not guidance nor any named alternative (e.g. 'use whodb_platform_files for all files, including non-tabular ones'), which is the main gap given how many file-listing siblings exist.

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