get_game_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a useful behavior: rows carry English *_en fields. But it does not mention the limit behavior, how many rows are returned, whether rows are returned in any order, or what happens when the table name is invalid. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but not fully transparent.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core purpose, the source of valid table names, and a key output convention. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose and output convention, and references list_game_tables for valid names. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the missing limit semantics and lack of explicit return-shape guidance leave a moderate gap. It is usable, but an agent would still need to infer or discover important invocation details.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. The phrase 'by name (see list_game_tables)' gives partial meaning for the table parameter, but the limit parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description adds some value but leaves a required part of the invocation semantics undocumented.

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 the operation (fetch rows), the resource (a game data table), and how the table is identified (by name). It also points to list_game_tables as the source for valid names, which helps distinguish this generic row-fetcher from the sibling-specific getters like get_hero or get_talent. It is not a full 5 because it does not explicitly contrast itself with search_game_data or other data-retrieval siblings.

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 parenthetical '(see list_game_tables)' gives implied usage guidance: call list_game_tables first to discover valid table names. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of search_game_data, list_game_tables, or the individual entity getters, nor does it give exclusions or alternative conditions.

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