Checks whether loading files into a table is available, identifies the file size above which the server pipeline route is recommended, and lists supported file types.
Whether "Load file into table" works here (not in server mode: the PC's disk isn't reachable), the size above which the server route (a pipeline) is recommended, and the file types listed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description does add genuine domain context beyond that: it discloses that in server mode the PC's disk is not reachable, which materially changes how an agent should interpret the result. It stops short of saying whether the answer is environment-dependent at call time or configurable.
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?
It is short, but the single sentence is a loose list of noun clauses with no main verb and awkward quoting of 'Load file into table', making it hard to parse on first read. Brevity is achieved at the cost of readability rather than through tight structure.
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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only channel for describing return content, and it does name three returned facts. However, it gives no hint about the shape or type of those values (boolean vs text, numeric size units, enumerated file types), which the agent needs to consume them.
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 takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the only shortfall is that it doesn't clarify that no input is expected.
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 enumerates what information the tool surfaces (local-load availability, size threshold for the pipeline route, supported file types), which is more specific than the bare name load_file_info. But it never states a verb or that this is a zero-argument lookup — it reads as a fragment of a return-value list rather than a statement of purpose, so an agent must infer what the call actually does.
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 references the server route (a pipeline) and the 'Load file into table' flow, but never says when to call this versus load_file_target, load_file_preview, load_file_pipeline, or load_file_start. No prerequisites, no ordering, no exclusions — the agent is left to guess its place in the load workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.