get_html_table_by_tuple

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format as a JSON string with columns and rows, but it does not mention error behavior, empty results, permission requirements, or potential side effects. For a read-style retrieval tool, the disclosed return format is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 compact and organized into an overview plus Args/Returns sections. The opening sentence is direct, and the parameter explanations are useful. Minor redundancy exists in the query_tuple field explanation, but overall it is efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs. However, it lacks examples or allowed values for report_name and table_name, and it does not explain what happens when the tuple does not match a table. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding or recovering from failures.

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%, but the description compensates by defining id as the model_id from get_available_models and explaining that query_tuple contains (zone/component, report_name, table_name). This adds essential meaning that the minimal schema lacks.

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 identifies a precise verb-resource pair: retrieve a specific HTML table from an EnergyPlus model. It also clarifies the retrieval mechanism (tuple query), which differentiates it from related tools like search_html_tables_by_keyword.

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 explains that id comes from get_available_models and that query_tuple selects the table, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling alternatives such as search_html_tables_by_keyword or execute_pandas_on_html_table.

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