export_getTables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing but does not state whether pageIndex filters results, whether all pages are scanned, what the return shape is, or whether only the active document is considered regardless of document_id.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how pageIndex works, how document_id relates to the 'active document' wording, or what the listing returns.

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 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, but pageIndex has no description. The tool description mentions 'active document' and ignores both parameters entirely, adding no meaning beyond the schema and even conflicting with the document_id parameter.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List all tables in the active document.' However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as table_list, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the description 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as table_list or table_getInfo. The description gives only a bare action statement and does not mention conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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