Inspect actual simulation table columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real behavioral context: it flags malformed tables, ambiguous names, and exceeded budgets (tying to maxRows/maxComparisons), and warns that hidden SCF signals absent from the TBL stay absent and that this does not prove the saved editor layout. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though return format and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core verb and returned artifacts, followed by caveats. Efficient overall, though the final sentence is slightly compressed and the mid-sentence clause stack is heavy.

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 read-only 9-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the malformed/ambiguous/budget failure modes, and an interpretation caveat about SCF signals. It could still say more about how the nested child* and budget parameters affect results, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how limit/offset interact with childLimit/childOffset, or how budgets degrade results), so it does not exceed the schema's own coverage.

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 (read) and resource (original TBL) and enumerates concrete outputs (input/output/buried signals, bit widths, native units, time span), so an agent knows exactly what the tool surfaces. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from likely siblings such as parse_tbl or waveform_results, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool, even though parse_tbl and waveform_results sit right beside it. The closing SCF caveat clarifies interpretation of results, not selection of this tool over another.

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