get_tables

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the return is a list of tables with metadata, but does not disclose what metadata is included, whether the operation is read-only, what happens with no tables, or any error conditions.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main verb/resource, and organized with Args/Returns sections. Every line adds information without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read/list operation, the description covers the essential input and a vague return type. However, it omits what 'metadata' contains and how the returned table references relate to sibling tools such as get_table_data, leaving an agent without full context for downstream calls.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that doc_id comes from open_document, which is critical for obtaining it. It does not detail the ID format, but for a single parameter this is meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 states a clear verb/resource ('Get tables from the document') and clarifies the return shape ('List of tables with metadata'), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_table_data. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 only usage context is 'doc_id: Document ID from open_document,' which hints at a prerequisite but gives no guidance about when to choose get_tables over get_table_data or other table tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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