docx_list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares read-only nature, which is essential for safety. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether it returns all tables, performance characteristics, or any limitations on the preview rows (e.g., max_cell_chars parameter). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise: three short phrases that convey the core purpose and read-only nature. No redundant words, and key information 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?

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'scope tags' or 'complexity' mean, whether all tables are listed, or the format of preview rows. Assumes significant domain knowledge.

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% and the description adds no explanation for either parameter. 'docx_path' and 'max_cell_chars' are not described; the latter's purpose is only weakly implied by 'preview rows'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 is read-only and lists the specific information it returns: table dimensions, scope tags, complexity, and preview rows. This provides a precise verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like docx_read_table which read full table content.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docx_read_table or docx_export_table_csv. The description mentions 'read-only' and 'list', but does not clarify use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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