etabs_get_table_data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the behavioral profile is clear. The description adds context about the table_key being an internal key from get_available_tables, which is useful but does not contradict annotations.

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 concise: 4 sentences plus structured Args/Returns. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions 'JSON object containing table fields and row data,' which is sufficient. The tool is part of a set of data retrieval tools, and the description is complete for its function.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: for table_key, it explains it is 'the internal key of the table (from get_available_tables)' and for group_name, it clarifies 'Optional group name to filter results (default '' means all).' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates fully.

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 states 'Get the contents of a specific database table,' clearly indicating the verb and resource. It mentions the table_key parameter is from get_available_tables, distinguishing it from sibling tools like etabs_get_available_tables. However, it could be more specific about what 'contents' includes; the return description clarifies it returns fields and row 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?

The description implies usage by stating the table_key comes from get_available_tables, suggesting a prerequisite step. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling getter tools like etabs_get_all_frames or etabs_get_base_reactions.

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