get_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. While the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, there is no explicit statement about non-modification or side effects. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

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, front-loading the purpose and efficiently presenting parameter and return information in a structured format. Every sentence is necessary and contributes value.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameter, and return schema. It lacks error handling or default behavior details, but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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 '0-based index' to the parameter 'table_idx', which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). This clarifies the expected input format. However, it does not specify valid range or behavior for invalid indices, which would improve completeness.

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 action ('Get structured info'), the resource ('single table'), and the method ('by zero-based index'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_tables' by specifying 'single table' and the indexing scheme.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_tables' or 'get_cell_text'. The description implies its use for a single table, but does not provide context or exclusions.

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