table_reconnect

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the call resynchronizes to a full state and explicitly does not replay missed commands, which sets agent expectations about side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one behavioral caveat that matters. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a high level ('fresh full state'). The main omission is any mention of the required table_id or what the state includes, but for a single-parameter resync tool this is nearly complete.

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?

There is one required parameter (table_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The name is largely self-explanatory, but nothing clarifies what a table_id refers to or how to obtain one, so the gap is uncompensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (reconnect a table session) plus the outcome (fresh full state). It's distinguishable from siblings like table_connect and table_disconnect, though it never names them directly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'after connection loss.' That clearly separates it from table_connect (initial connection), but it doesn't state when NOT to use it or name the alternative to call when a connection is still healthy.

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