origin_import_table

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

The description states the tool imports into a 'new worksheet', hinting at non-destructive behavior, but no annotations are provided to confirm safety. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like file size limits, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing data. The single sentence carries the full burden for behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence of 14 words. It front-loads the primary action and file types without unnecessary detail. Every word serves a purpose, earning a high score in this dimension.

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 has 10 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema (not detailed), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits key contextual information such as return values, error conditions, and parameter behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke 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 0%, meaning none of the 10 input parameters are described. The description only lists supported file formats, adding no meaning to parameters like 'delimiter', 'encoding', or 'header'. An agent would require external documentation to infer parameter usage.

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 specifies the verb 'Import' and the resource 'file into a new Origin worksheet', listing supported file formats (CSV, TSV, TXT, DAT, XLS, XLSX). It clearly indicates the tool's function but does not differentiate it from siblings like origin_read_worksheet, which reads existing worksheets. A more explicit distinction would improve clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as origin_read_worksheet for internal data or origin_write_worksheet for exporting. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or mentions of prerequisites like file availability.

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