Create table card

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 key behavioral traits: delimiter auto-detection, newlines as cell markers, URL cells becoming links, and the two modes (explicit rows vs. text conversion). This gives the agent meaningful insight beyond the schema, though it omits edge-case behavior like precedence when both rows and text are supplied.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediate details about conversion behavior and URL handling. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Despite having 11 parameters, the description captures the tool's two primary use cases and key behaviors. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. It is sufficient for an agent to select the tool and understand the main input approaches, though deeper parameter interactions remain to schema definitions.

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 45%, so the tool description must compensate. The description adds context for cellDelimiter (auto-detected) and linkColumns (URL cells become links), and clarifies rows vs. text modes. However, it leaves unclear parameters like caption, columns, and subtitle without added explanation, and the schema only partially describes them.

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 tool's purpose: 'Render an HTML table card from explicit rows, or convert loosely delimited text into a balanced table'. It uses a specific verb ('render') and resource ('HTML table card'), and details two distinct input modes, distinguishing it from sibling card tools like create_list_card.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a table card is needed—and describes the two input modes. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving usage context implicit rather than clearly bounded.

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