inspect_ets_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that output is limited to avoid massive output, which is useful context. However, it does not elaborate on error behavior, return format, or clearly state it is a read-only operation (though 'Read' implies this). It adds some behavioral insight but not rich detail.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying the core purpose, a warning about output limits, and a usage prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 read tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the limit behavior, and the recommended workflow. It does not explain edge cases like nonexistent tables or exact row formatting, but these are not critical for a straightforward inspection tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that output is limited, which is already captured by the 'limit' parameter description. Therefore, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool reads and returns ETS table rows, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_ets_tables' by positioning itself as the follow-up step after listing table names, preventing confusion.

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 explicitly advises using 'list_ets_tables first to find table names, then inspect specific tables.' This provides clear context on when to use the tool relative to its sibling. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for other scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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