split_column_to_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that it appends specific M query functions to the table's existing query, which is useful context. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or how it interacts with existing query steps.

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 two short sentences with no redundant or extraneous information. The first sentence defines the operation, the second explains the underlying M query changes, making it concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains the core splitting logic and the M query modification, but it leaves gaps about the required parameters (table, sessionId) and the broader effects on the existing query chain. It's adequate for a simple data transformation but not comprehensive.

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 60%, leaving table and sessionId without descriptions. The description adds no clarification for these parameters and only repeats the column and delimiter concepts already present in the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented 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's function: splitting a text column on a delimiter so each part becomes its own row. It specifies both the operation (split column into rows) and the technical implementation (appends Table.SplitColumn + Table.ExpandListColumn), making it distinct from sibling tools like split_column (likely columns) and unpivot_columns.

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 the tool is used when you want to split a column into rows, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It provides no exclusions or mention of sibling tools, only a clear functional definition.

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