analyze_table

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

Describes key behaviors: uses wcwidth for display-width, handles Thai/Pali combining marks, scans '+' markers, validates '|' alignment, and returns an analysis report. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it is detailed but could be more explicit about being read-only.

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?

Description is structured into paragraphs with args/returns and key implementation details. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, clear output), the description covers input, behavior, and output adequately. It explains Unicode handling and return structure, though error cases are not mentioned.

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_text' is explained as 'A +---+ grid table as raw text', adding meaning beyond the schema's type string. The description compensates for 0% schema coverage effectively.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes column positions in a grid table, with specific details like scanning '+' markers and validating '|' alignment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on analysis rather than table creation or preview.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_table_text' or 'debug_table'. The description implies usage for analyzing grid table formatting but does not provide exclusions or contrasts.

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