Get Grist Table Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds detail levels and token estimates, but does not explain behavior for optional parameters (offset, limit) or response format, and truncation limits 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 short but clearly truncated (ends mid-word). The inclusion of an example and inline code is helpful, but the incomplete structure and lack of full sentences reduce conciseness and professionalism.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete: it fails to explain multiple parameters, the return format, or pagination. While annotations are rich, the description does not sufficiently cover the tool's full context.

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 partially describes detail_level with token estimates, but does not explain docId, tableId, response_format, offset, or limit. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 retrieves table structure and schema, and explains detail levels (names, columns, full_schema). However, the description appears truncated (ends with '+ t'), slightly reducing clarity.

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 token estimates and suggests using grist_help for full schema, giving some usage guidance. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like grist_manage_schema or grist_get_records, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool.

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