list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about the return structure by listing each entry's fields: name, sheet, and ref. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the scope 'every named table' discloses that no filtering occurs.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The bullet list cleanly presents the return entry structure without unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the fields of each entry. The only notable omission is parameter semantics for file_path, which is somewhat mitigated by the self-explanatory parameter name. Overall, an agent has enough information to call this tool correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for documenting the file_path parameter, but it does not mention file_path at all. The schema only states that file_path is a required string, and the description adds no semantic value such as path format, workbook context, or example. This is a significant gap for the only 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return every named table in the workbook.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_sheets and list_pivot_tables by focusing on named tables rather than sheets or pivot tables. The scope 'every named table' removes ambiguity about filtering.

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 purpose statement itself provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs to enumerate all named tables in a workbook. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource term 'named table' implicitly disambiguates from list_sheets and list_pivot_tables. No exclusion conditions are needed for such a straightforward listing tool.

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