Read table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context like 'Defaults to JSON' and output format options, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, error behavior, or response structure), which would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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 clean sentences: the first states the primary action, the second covers defaults and capabilities. It is front-loaded, succinct, and every clause adds value without unnecessary waste.

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's simplicity and the presence of read-only annotations, the description covers the essential behavior well. It could optionally mention return value structure or limitations, but the core context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all six parameters already have descriptive explanations. The description reinforces the meaning of 'format', 'view', and 'columns' but does not add new syntax or behavioral details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states the tool's core function with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the content of a table in a document.' It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like banana_cell or banana_rowlist, but the name and description make its role clear as the general table reader.

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?

Usage context is implied through the mention of defaults (JSON) and configurable options (view, columns, output format), but there are no explicit 'when to use' or alternative comparisons. The description lacks exclusionary guidance for when to prefer banana_table over similar read tools.

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