list_tables

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'native Excel tables' (not ranges or sheet data) are listed and that scope can be per-sheet or whole workbook. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid sheet names or return format, which annotations do not need to cover.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every word adds meaning.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool, the description plus annotations cover the core purpose, scope, and safety. The schema is minimal, and no output schema exists. It lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter details, but is largely sufficient for this low complexity.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain filepath or sheet_name. 'one worksheet or the whole workbook' implies the optionality of sheet_name, but filepath remains undefined. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('List') targeting a specific resource ('native Excel tables') with scope options ('one worksheet or the whole workbook'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_named_ranges or read_excel_table.

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, nor when to pass a sheet_name versus omitting it. The scope mention is the only contextual cue, but it does not cover selection criteria or exclusions.

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