VTable 概览

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only bind+return operation. It adds the behavioral trait that this call establishes a persistent binding reused by later VTable tools, which goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand stateful implications.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the binding consequence is stated immediately after, making it easy to scan and act on.

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?

The description covers the binding behavior and the returned metadata. Since an output schema exists, the return format is handled there. It could mention prerequisites like requiring an active VTable, but that is implied by 'active page', so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters (tab_id and table_index) already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description only reinforces that table_index can be omitted, which duplicates schema information, so it adds no new 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 verb 'bind' and the resource 'VTable in the active page', and lists the exact metadata returned (rows/columns, header rows, frozen cells, canvas position/size, instance type). It also distinguishes itself from sibling VTable tools by positioning itself as the binding/overview tool, so an agent knows it is the entry point for VTable operations.

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 explicitly states that subsequent VTable tools reuse this binding and that table_index can be omitted, giving a clear 'use this first' pattern. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the binding concept makes the intended sequence unambiguous.

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