table_to_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Convert a table to text'. It does not state whether the tool returns a string, writes text into the document, or has other side effects. The delimiter/custom_char args hint at formatting but not the operation's overall effect.

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 one-line operation plus a compact Args block is tightly written with no filler. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the parameter explanations are easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered. The description explains parameters and the prerequisite of an open document. However, the lack of behavioral detail about what 'convert' does to the document leaves an agent uncertain about side effects, which is significant for a tool with no annotations.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: doc_id's provenance, delimiter's allowed values, and custom_char's purpose. table_index is only described as 'Index of the table', which is minimal but adequate.

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 'Convert a table to text' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core operation clear. It naturally contrasts with sibling text_to_table, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope the conversion.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The only contextual hint is the parameter note that doc_id comes from open_document, implying an open document is required, but there is no direction about when to choose this over get_table_data or text_to_table.

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