text_to_table

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the operation and lists parameters. It does not disclose whether the selected text is replaced, whether a delimiter mismatch causes failure, or what happens to the original selection. These are material gaps for a transformation tool.

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?

One opening sentence plus a terse Args block; no filler. However, the Args section partially repeats schema defaults, and additional behavioral context would be more valuable than the parameter repetition.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, an agent still lacks key context for a text-to-table transformation: whether selected text is required, whether original text is replaced, and what constraints delimiter and num_cols must satisfy. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations and a large sibling list.

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 schema has no per-property descriptions, so the Args block adds some value by identifying doc_id as coming from open_document, enumerating delimiter choices, and defining num_cols. However, the explanations are minimal and do not clarify optionality or behavior beyond what the schema defaults already indicate.

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 opening phrase 'Convert selected text to a table' names a specific action and resource, and the 'selected text' wording helps distinguish it from table creation or table_to_text. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling table 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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The only implicit signal is 'selected text', but the description never says when to prefer this over create_table, table_to_text, or other table editing tools, and it does not state prerequisites like having an active selection.

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