wdata_list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. While the tool's name suggests a read operation, the description does not confirm this or disclose any other behavioral aspects. This is a significant gap for a no-annotation scenario.

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 well-structured: first sentence states what is listed, second sentence provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys all necessary information in two clear sentences.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and has an output schema, the description adequately explains the key output field sql_ref and its usage. However, it does not mention the scope of the list (e.g., all tables the user has access to) or any potential limits. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns all accessible tables, but for a simple list operation, the current description is nearly sufficient.

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 no parameters, so the dimension baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics (none needed) but does explain the output fields, providing context that goes beyond the schema. Since there are no parameters to describe, a score of 4 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 it lists Wdata tables and specifies the exact fields returned (id, name, databaseId, lastUploaded, sql_ref). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wdata_get_table (which likely gets a single table) and wdata_list_queries (which lists queries). The verb 'list' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage instructions for the critical output field sql_ref: 'Copy sql_ref verbatim into your query: SELECT ... FROM <sql_ref> AS "alias"'. It also explains that databaseId doubles as workspace id in Spreadsheets UI URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use wdata_get_table instead), though this is implied by the tool's purpose. The guidance is valuable but could be more explicit about context.

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