read_table

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: default limit of 20 rows, supported filters (eq/ne/gt/gte/lt/lte/contains), column selection, and pagination via offset/limit. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then quickly covers capabilities and the prerequisite workflow. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 read-only table query tool with five parameters, the description covers the prerequisite, supported filters, pagination, and column selection. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the simplicity of the operation and the explicit read-only annotation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the filter operator list and pagination defaults but adds little new meaning beyond the schema; the schema itself already mentions the list_tables source and default limit. This meets the baseline but does not significantly extend it.

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 action ('读取...数据行') and the resource ('工作区内指定数值表'), and specifies the main capabilities (column selection, filtering, pagination). It also distinguishes itself from list_tables by telling the agent to call list_tables first for table and column names, avoiding confusion with sibling tools.

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 concrete usage context: use this tool to read rows from a table, and explicitly instructs the agent to first call list_tables to obtain table and column names. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings, but the workflow guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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