get_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (dict with index, row_count, col_count, cells) but omits any safety or behavioral traits such as error handling for out-of-bounds indices, whether it is read-only (implied but not stated), or any side effects.

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 extremely concise: a single line specifying the purpose followed by a docstring for args and returns. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, 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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (return format given), the description is adequate but lacks details on error behavior or usage notes. Given the large sibling set, it could be more complete by hinting at index validity or data retrieval limits.

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 crucial meaning to the single parameter 'table_idx' by specifying it is a 'zero-based index,' which is not clear from the schema alone (just 'integer'). With 0% schema coverage, this clarification is valuable.

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 'Get structured info for a single table by zero-based index,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_tables' (which likely lists all tables) and 'get_cell_text' (cell-level data).

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 implies usage when you need a specific table's data by index but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tables' for listing all tables or 'get_cell_text' for cell-level access. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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