preview

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

The description mentions the cap by TABLEBRIDGE_MAX_ROWS, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects such as what 'first' means (ordering), whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not stated), or any authentication needs. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the core functionality. No unnecessary words or information, making it efficient for agent parsing.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. It lacks detail on ordering and table identification, but these may be acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for more detail.

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 description adds meaning to the 'n' parameter by mentioning the cap, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the 'table' parameter format or constraints. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more thorough.

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 returns the first n rows of a table, with a cap. The verb 'return' and resource 'rows of a table' are specific. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like describe (schema) or query (complex queries).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query or describe. The context is implied by naming, but explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions are absent.

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