add_table_view_folding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('Emits Table.View(null, [handlers])'), the automatic addition of mandatory baseline handlers, and flags that handler bodies are templates requiring specialization. This goes beyond a simple operation description, though it omits potential side effects or permissions.

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 given the complexity, using short sentences and labeled cues like 'ADVANCED' and 'FLAG.' Each sentence adds value: stating the purpose, the output, the handler list, the baseline, and the template warning. It is not overly verbose but uses dense jargon appropriate for the audience.

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 complex with no output schema, so the description must explain return values and caveats. It does explain the emitted Table.View and the template nature, but it stops short of detailing the specialization process or what happens after scaffolding. For an expert, this is mostly sufficient, but some aspects remain undefined.

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?

While schema coverage is 50%, the description adds significant meaning for the 'handlers' parameter by enumerating the full list of accepted values and explaining the mandatory baseline. It does not elaborate on 'table' or 'sessionId', but those are likely self-evident. For an advanced tool, this level of parameter detail is helpful.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'scaffold a Table.View that implements custom query folding over a non-foldable source.' This is a specific verb + resource (scaffold a Table.View) and clearly distinguishes it from related tools like 'set_stop_folding' by focusing on adding folding rather than stopping it.

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 clear context: use this for 'non-foldable source' where you want to implement custom folding. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the condition 'non-foldable source' is an explicit usage scenario. Sibling tools like 'set_stop_folding' imply the opposite action, giving subtle differentiation.

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