Read Pine table cells preserving original row/column coordinates and blanks.
Read Pine table cells preserving original row/column coordinates and blanks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| entity_id | No | ||
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond annotations: it preserves original row/column coordinates and blanks. It does not mention pagination behavior, the role of target_id, or what happens when expected_layout_id mismatches, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the key preservation behavior compactly.
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 five parameters, no required fields, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too thin. It does not explain pagination via limit/offset, the purpose of entity_id, or the significance of target_id and expected_layout_id, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.
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 only 40%, with limit, offset, and entity_id undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The two documented parameters (target_id and expected_layout_id) are explained only in the schema, not in the description.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read Pine table cells." It also specifies a distinctive behavior, preserving original row/column coordinates and blanks. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as data_get_pine_lines, data_get_pine_labels, or data_get_pine_boxes, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied usage is simply reading Pine table cells, but there is no context about pagination, target_id, or expected_layout_id usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.