get_data_table_rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. The description goes further with a subtle behavioral note: for user-defined ENUM columns it emits the enumerator DISPLAY NAME whereas ExportText readers return an empty string for index-0, which is indistinguishable from an unwritten column. This is genuinely useful caveat context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover pagination or scale limits.

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-loaded with purpose, then sibling routing, then the ENUM caveat, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence earns its place; only the ENUM edge case is a slight digression.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return shape itself. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, it is close to complete. Minor gap: no pagination or scale-limit context for a whole-table dump.

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% for the sole table_path parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds value by specifying the return shape { table_path, row_name, rows, row_count } and clarifying that the tool operates across every row, which helps the agent understand the parameter's effect. Slight extra credit over baseline.

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 and resource: dumps EVERY row of a DataTable as an array with the row count. The description also names its sibling alternatives (get_data_table_row for one row, get_data_table_column for one column) and explains the whole-table scope.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: for browsing or diffing a whole table. Names the alternative tools for narrower scopes (get_data_table_row and get_data_table_column) and states the condition that selects them.

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