sort_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses header preservation, missing cell treatment, and default ascending order. However, it omits details like sort stability, mutation side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid column index), and whether sorting is by text only. These gaps reduce transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with behavior summary, followed by structured argument and return sections. Each sentence serves a purpose. Minor redundancy (return format already in output schema) but overall efficient.

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 annotations and moderate complexity (table sorting), the description covers main behaviors but misses edge cases (mixed content types, empty table, error handling). An output schema exists, so return values are documented. The description is functional but not exhaustive.

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 fully explains parameters. It defines table_idx and column_index as 0-based, ascending with default true. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types. However, it could provide more constraints (e.g., valid ranges) or format examples.

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 sorts non-header rows of a table by column text content. It distinguishes from siblings like get_table (read) or delete_table (destructive) by focusing on sorting behavior. It explains header row preservation and missing cell handling, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use (sorting table rows) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. It mentions header row behavior as a hint but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance or prerequisites like requiring a valid table index.

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