apple_numbers_list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return content ('names and dimensions') and says nothing about pagination despite limit/offset parameters existing, nor about resolution of document/sheet names.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise in the positive sense.

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?

With no output schema and only 25% parameter coverage, the description should explain the return shape and pagination, but it does neither. An agent cannot tell whether limit/offset matter or what a returned table entry looks like beyond 'names and dimensions'.

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 only 25% — documentName is documented, but sheetName, limit, and offset carry no semantic explanation in either schema or description. The description does not compensate: it never explains that limit/offset paginate results or how sheetName is obtained.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('table names and dimensions in a Numbers sheet'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling list tools for documents and sheets. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope (tables within a sheet) is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus apple_numbers_list_sheets, apple_numbers_list_documents, or apple_numbers_read_range, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the document/sheet must already be open or that documentName comes from list_documents). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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