add_table_visual

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that fields are shown left-to-right and that kind can be column or measure, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no redundancy. It leads with the core action and then clarifies a key parameter.

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 description is minimal and does not compensate for the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema, many siblings). It lacks context about when to use a table versus other visual types, and doesn't mention how it integrates with reportSessionId and pageName.

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 schema covers only 13% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds useful detail for 'fields', specifying the JSON array format and allowed kinds, but provides no additional meaning for the other seven parameters.

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 adds a table visual, which is a specific visual type distinct from sibling tools like add_matrix and add_chart. The 'fields' clarification reinforces the table's data structure.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as add_matrix, add_chart, or add_visual. There are no explicit exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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