inspect_data_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It details implementation (C++ handler, no new deps, null-guards) and specific behavior (EFieldIterationFlags::None to skip super fields). This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is moderately concise; each sentence adds value. Could be slightly shorter but appropriate for the complexity.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively explains return values (row count, sorted row names, per-property details, flags, etc.) and edge cases (null RowStruct guard). It is fully complete for the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's path parameter description; it only provides an example path. No additional semantics for the parameter are given.

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 it reads structural properties of a UDataTable, listing specific fields (RowStruct, row count, sorted row names, per-property info, flags, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource set, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling inspect tools, the target resource (UDataTable) is distinct.

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 (e.g., other inspect tools for different asset types). It lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.

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