get_table_sample_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the limit behavior (default 3, max 10), the JSON return format, and includes a detailed example with sample rows and a template suggestion. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly describe error handling or side effects.

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 organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and is easy to scan. The opening two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Get sample row data...' and 'Retrieves a few sample rows...'), which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 tool's purpose, parameters, return format, and an illustrative example are all covered. Since the context indicates an output schema exists, the description is not required to exhaustively list return fields. It adequately covers the essential information for correct usage, though it could mention edge cases like invalid table names.

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's Args section is essential. It defines table_name as 'Name of the table' and explains limit's default and max, adding a constraint (max 10) not present in the schema. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Get sample row data') and the resource ('from a table for template testing'). It further explains it retrieves sample rows for Handlebars templates, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record or preview_table.

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 instruction 'Use this to see real values that would be available in templates' provides a clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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