format_format_table

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'renders' a table, implying no side effects, but does not confirm read-only status, error handling (e.g., invalid JSON), or performance characteristics. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent about safe usage.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with a '[format]' tag. Every word serves a purpose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters. It is not verbose, but the compactness is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 three parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is incomplete. It only addresses the 'data' parameter loosely, ignoring 'columns' and 'max_col_width'. While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returned values), the input parameter documentation is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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%, so the description should explain parameters. Only 'data' is partially described as 'JSON array of dicts'—this adds some meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, 'columns' and 'max_col_width' are not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer their purpose.

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 renders a JSON array of dicts as a plain-text table, specifying both input and output formats. It distinguishes from sibling format_* tools that format single values (e.g., format_bytes, format_currency) by explicitly mentioning 'table'. The verb 'Render' is specific and appropriate.

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 you have a JSON array of dicts and want a text table, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like table_table_read. No exclusion criteria or context about when not to use it is provided.

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