get_table

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds rich behavioral detail: the row format (labels, value cells, parsed values, footnote markers), spans_rows for merged cells, tier/page/check metadata, citation-check requirements, and the empty-table_id listing mode.

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 information-dense and mostly front-loaded, with each sentence adding a distinct piece of behavior or parameter guidance. It is slightly long due to the necessary return-format and citation-check instructions, but not wasteful.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description does the necessary work: it explains the return structure, special row attributes, citation rules, and the listing fallback. An agent has enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It provides concrete examples for doc_id (e.g. 'ECSS-E-ST-32-10C') and table_id (e.g. 'Table 4-3' or '4-3'), and explains the empty-string default that lists a document's tables.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (table), and output form (structured rows, verbatim). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_requirement and get_section_outline, which handle requirements and outlines rather than tabular data.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose, and the description explains that omitting table_id lists a document's tables. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like list_documents or search_requirements, nor does it state prerequisites for obtaining doc_id.

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