get_chooser_row_values

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: no compile/save, headless operation because row data is not editor-only, and that an out-of-range row_index is an honest error. Only minor gaps remain around pagination or sizing for large tables.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then alternatives, then cell-shape details, then behavioral notes and the return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description inlines the return structure and the per-column-type cell shapes, and annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this read-only tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds parameter-relevant behavior beyond the schema by noting that an out-of-range row_index surfaces as an explicit error, which shapes how the agent should treat the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with explicit scope ('Read ONE ROW ACROSS ALL COLUMNS of a UChooserTable, as typed cells'). It distinguishes itself from siblings get_chooser_column_values and inspect_chooser_table by name, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly positions itself against the two nearest alternatives: the row-wise counterpart of get_chooser_column_values and finer-grained than inspect_chooser_table. The contrast makes the when-to-use decision clear without inference.

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