get_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only (extracting) and details what is returned. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, though for a retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 with no extraneous information. It front-loads the main action and result, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., section without tables) but covers the core functionality sufficiently for a simple extraction tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for each parameter. The tool description adds minimal extra value beyond stating the return format, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extracts table structures from a specified section of a PDF specification, including what is returned (headers, rows, optional captions). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like get_section or get_definitions by focusing specifically on tables.

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 description implies usage when table structures are needed from a PDF spec section, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_section or search_spec, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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