get_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully lists the returned fields, including the row-major cell grid and has_merged_cells, and documents all three error codes with their meanings. The word 'Read' also signals a non-mutating operation, which is important for safe tool selection.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise usage note, a compact return-field list, and a scannable error list. There is no filler or repetition; each paragraph earns its place and helps the agent act quickly.

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 description covers the tool's role in the workflow, expected inputs via list_tables, the complete output payload, and possible errors. Even with an output schema present, it adds useful detail about the row-major cell grid. The only small gap is that doc_id and tab_id are not explicitly explained beyond the error message context, but overall the definition is operationally complete.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for table_index by stating it is 'returned from list_tables,' and it clarifies tab_id indirectly via the TAB_NOT_FOUND error. However, it never explicitly explains doc_id or how to obtain it, leaving one of the three required parameters undefined.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one table's full cell grid.' It further distinguishes the tool by noting the table is identified by the table_index returned from list_tables and is meant to be used before replace_table_row, which clearly separates it from related sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to read every cell of a specific table ... before editing a row with replace_table_row.' It also references list_tables as the source of table_index, giving a clear workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended context is well established.

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