vtable_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states it reads only VTable API/scenegraph, never clicks or expands canvas DOM, returns absolute viewport coordinates, explains click_opens_dom_input, and documents multi-table catalog behavior and token-control modes. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause adds behavioral or workflow value. The single dense paragraph is information-rich but would benefit from clearer separation of modes, catalog selection, and diagnostic toggles.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is almost complete: workflow, coordinate handoff, defaults, and diagnostic overrides are all covered. The missing semantics for max_columns/sample_rows and the lack of explicit sibling-tool exclusions keep it from a 5.

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 compensates by explaining mode, fields, include_values, visible_only, and table_index. It leaves max_columns and sample_rows undocumented, so parameter coverage is strong but not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: scanning current VTable headers, interaction icons, and limited-value cells for interaction evidence. It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to contrast against.

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?

It provides operational instructions: first call returns a catalog when multiple VTables exist, table_index disambiguates, and interactive vs full modes are explained. However, it never states when to prefer vtable_analysis over alternatives like vtable_cell_info or vtable_read_cells, so usage boundaries remain implicit.

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