chooser_inspect_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return structure (result type, output class, rows, columns) but does not explicitly declare whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur. The name 'inspect' implies a non-mutating operation, and the description adds the return details, but it does not cover prerequisites or error behavior.

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 and well-structured, with clear sections for args, returns, KB reference, and example. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every line adds value without redundancy.

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 simple inspection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what the parameter is, what it returns, and an example. It also references a knowledge base for deeper context. It lacks explicit error handling details, but these are not critical for a read-only inspect operation.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'chooser' with no description, but the description provides meaning by stating it is a 'Chooser table asset path' and includes an example path in the example call. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the expected format.

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 verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'Chooser table' along with what is inspected: rows, columns, and result settings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chooser_create_table (create) and chooser_add_asset_row (add), which are clearly different operations.

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 when you need to inspect a Chooser table, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like chooser_create_table or chooser_add_asset_row. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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