workiva_get_table_columns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action and fails to mention potential side effects (none expected for a get), permissions required, return format, or error behavior. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool 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 a single sentence plus a parameter reference. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get column properties') and contains no redundant or filler words, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'column properties' entails, whether the table must exist, or how this relates to the broader Wdata workflow. The output schema covers return values, but additional context would help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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 only parameter, table_id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds 'The table UUID', which clarifies the expected format (UUID). This provides some value beyond the schema, but it does not elaborate on how to obtain the UUID or any constraints (e.g., must be a Wdata table). It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Get column properties for a table' clearly states the specific verb (get) and resource (column properties of a table). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workiva_get_table_properties (table-level properties) and workiva_get_table_rows (row data), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives like workiva_get_table_properties or workiva_get_table_rows. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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