table_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool returns (structure and quality metrics) but does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or mention any side effects, error conditions, or permissions. Since it is a 'report' tool, read-only behavior is implied but not stated, leaving a moderate gap.

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 compact and well-organized. It front-loads the purpose, then lists outputs, usage guidance, and parameters. Every sentence contributes value—no filler or redundancy. The flow is logical and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is fairly simple (2 params, output schema exists) and the description covers the input semantics, output content, and usage sequence. It lacks explicit error-handling notes (e.g., unsupported formats) or size limitations, but these are minor given the clarity of the rest. The inclusion of the sibling for the next step adds completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains both parameters: 'text: The whole table as text' and 'from_format: How to read the input. markdown, csv, tsv, json or html.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types, though it omits constraints like size limits or encoding, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Report'), resource ('a table'), and enumerates the exact output (row/column counts, per-column summary, list of problems). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the first step before table_transform, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting other tools.

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 gives a clear directive: 'Call this first when a table looks suspicious, then fix it with table_transform.' This specifies when to use the tool and names the alternative for the follow-up action, effectively covering the usage context and a key sibling distinction.

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