get_table_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates this is a SELECT wrapper (read-only implied) but does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. The description lacks transparency about side effects or permissions.

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: two lines of purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the structure mixes prose and bullet list. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter descriptions could be formatted more cleanly.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter constraints (limit cap) and provides examples. It does not explain return format or error behavior, but for a simple SELECT wrapper, return values are implicitly rows. The missing 'database' parameter reduces completeness.

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 description adds meaning to most parameters (table, columns, where, order_by, limit, offset) with examples and constraints (e.g., '≤1000' for limit). However, it misses the 'database' parameter present in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well but not completely.

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's purpose: '快速获取表数据（封装 SELECT，避免手写 SQL）' which translates to 'Quickly get table data (encapsulated SELECT, avoid writing SQL manually).' This specifies the verb (get), resource (table data), and the value proposition (avoid hand-writing SQL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_select.

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 for quick table data retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., execute_select for complex queries). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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