column_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns prompt text and neighboring columns, which is helpful, but it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only (safe) or has any side effects. It also doesn't specify if there are permissions or prerequisites. The description is not contradictory, but it lacks depth in behavioral disclosure, especially for mutation/read aspects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output. There is no wasted text, and it manages to mention both the prompt text and the upstream/downstream columns, which is important for the tool's specific use. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters inevitably both required, has an output schema, and no nested objects flags. The description covers the main purpose and output. It doesn't explicitly state the return format (though output schema may cover that), and it leaves out any mention of edge cases (e.g., invalid column names). Given the relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is reasonably complete, but could benefit from noting the 'full prompt text' includes formatting or length.

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 coverage is 50%: 'table' is described with an example ('01' or '13'), but 'column' has no description and no enums. The description adds meaning by indicating these parameters identify a specific column for retrieval. However, it doesn't clarify the format of 'column' (is it a string of column name? A number?), so the agent must infer. The tool description partially compensates but could add more syntax guidance.

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 returns one column's full prompt text with its upstream and downstream columns. This is a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one column's full prompt text'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like table_read or columns_find, which likely have broader or different scopes. The description is not a tautology; it adds meaningful detail about output contents.

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 the tool is used to inspect a single column's prompt and its neighbors, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like columns_find or table_describe. There is no explicit 'when to use/when not to use' guidance. However, the description is clear enough that an agent could infer it's for column-specific prompt retrieval.

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