vtable_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly says the operation is a read and adds 'defensive取值' (defensive retrieval), signaling it tolerates missing fields and has no destructive side effects. It does not over-elaborate on error behavior, but for a metadata getter this is adequate.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a useful parenthetical, followed by a concrete downstream workflow. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, metadata-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is read, what fields matter, and how the agent should use them for later batch operations. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden to compensate for. The description sensibly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('读取' / read) and a precise resource: VTable metadata covering scale, frozen rows/columns, and theme. It clearly differentiates this from cell-reading and cell-click tools by emphasizing metadata-oriented, defensive retrieval.

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 gives clear operational guidance: the AI should first fetch rowCount/colCount/frozenRowCount before planning batch reads and scrolling. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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