vtable_get_all_records

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

无 annotations，描述承担全部责任。它披露了'无损'、'一次性'、'后台数据'、'无需操作 DOM'等关键行为特征，比简单说'获取记录'更具信息量。但未讨论错误处理或大规模数据时的限制，略显不足。

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?

单句描述，信息密度高，无冗余内容。目的语在一开始就点明，结构紧凑，每个词都有价值。

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?

工具较简单且存在输出 schema，描述对用途和行为有一定覆盖，但未解释参数含义，也未说明与其他表格工具的限制边界。整体可用但有明显缺口。

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 描述覆盖率为 0%，描述中完全未提及 iframe_selector 参数，也未能补偿参数含义。尽管参数名和默认值提供了一些线索，但描述本身没有增加任何参数相关的语义。

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?

描述使用明确动词'读取'并指明资源为'表格中所有的完整后台行记录对象 (JSON)'，与 vtable_get_cell_text 等姊妹工具形成清晰区分。还提供了具体用途'整表断言和宏观数据检查'，信息充分。

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?

描述了适用场景'整表断言和宏观数据检查'，并说明'无需操作 DOM'，给出了行为边界。但未明确排除其他工具或提及替代方案，因此未达到满分。

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