Create table card

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden for behavior. It discloses useful behaviors: delimiter auto-detection, newlines as optional cell markers, and URL cells becoming links. It also implies a balanced table normalization. Yet it does not mention behavior for when both rows and text are supplied, or any failure modes, making it sufficient but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds a single behavioral detail (URL links). It is efficient, with no redundant fluff, and every clause adds a distinct use-case or behavior. This is an example of concise, high-value prose.

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?

Given 11 parameters and one required field (title), the description covers two main input modes but does not touch on caption, subtitle, columns, headers, tutorTerms, contextActions, or linkColumns. Though output schema exists, the set of options is broad, and many are left to the schema's implicit meaning. For an agent to use all features correctly, more explanation would be needed, but it suffices for the common path.

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%, and several parameters (columns, caption, subtitle, linkColumns, cellDelimiter) lack inline descriptions. The description adds meaning for text and cellDelimiter (auto-detected) and linkColumns (URL cells become links), but it ignores caption, columns, subtitle, and headers beyond what is in the schema. It compensates for some gaps but not the majority, so it meets the minimum but not more.

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.' This is a specific verb plus resource, making it distinct from sibling creation tools like create_chart_card or create_form_card. The two modes (explicit rows vs. text) are named, adding specificity, though it doesn't explicitly name a different sibling or exclusion.

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 two main use cases (structured rows or raw text conversion) and mentions auto-detection of delimiters, which gives some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to favor this over sibling card creators (e.g., for tabular data vs. charts) or provide any 'when not to use' guidance. Since siblings are numerous, a clearer routing could be expected, but the core instruction ('from explicit rows or text') is implied enough for basic use.

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