make_table_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool prints a preview, indicating no destructive side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that no modifications are made, which would be ideal for full transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then a bulleted list of parameters with all values enumerated. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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 is a simple preview with no side effects and an output schema exists (from context signals), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, all parameters, and the return value is implied by the output schema. No gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: style with example values ('thai' with Thai/Pali, 'simple' with English), fmt with options ('grid', 'box', 'pipe', 'safe'), and table_style with examples ('mysql', 'separated'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 prints a preview/example table with sample data. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like make_table (which presumably creates actual tables) or analyze_table (which analyzes tables).

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 implicitly suggests using this tool for previewing table formats, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The docstring implies usage through its purpose, but lacks direct guidance.

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