preview_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads data ('Return', 'inspect') and uses a TOPN approach, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not elaborate on limitations, such as maximum N or behavior if the table is empty, nor does it mention whether sessionId must be valid. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes value: 'Return', 'first N rows', 'TOPN', 'inspect actual data', 'after a refresh.' No unnecessary information or padding.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It explains why the tool is used (inspect after refresh) and what it returns (first N rows). It does not address potential error conditions or the role of sessionId, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'rows' parameter as 'first N rows' and implies 'table' is the target table. However, the 'sessionId' parameter is not explained, and the description does not map parameter names to their semantics explicitly. This partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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's function: 'Return the first N rows of a table (TOPN)' with a specific purpose 'to inspect the actual data after a refresh.' This is a precise verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from other table-related tools like read_table_offline or column_statistics, which serve different inspection needs. The inclusion of 'TOPN' and 'after a refresh' adds specificity.

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 usage context by specifying the intended scenario: inspecting actual data after a refresh. This implies when the tool should be used. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions when it should not be used, so it falls short of an explicit exclusion. Still, the stated purpose gives practical guidance.

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