get_nested_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses the returned content types. It also explains the nested_index semantics clearly. It does not describe failure behavior for invalid host addresses, but the read-only guarantee is a strong behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured sentences: the first defines what is returned and how the tool is addressed, and the second points to the write sibling. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping 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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a read-only accessor, the description covers invocation context, indexing semantics, and the relevant sibling for writes. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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. It explains table_index, row, cell, and nested_index, including the meaning of 0 vs higher nested_index values. file_path is not described, though its meaning is reasonably inferable from the name and tool context.

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?

States the exact verb and resource: read a table nested inside a cell of a body-level table, returning rows, cells, text, and merge info. It also differentiates itself from get_table by explaining the addressing model, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (for nested tables addressed by host table/row/cell/nested_index) and points to set_nested_cells as the write counterpart. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_table, which is for body-level tables rather than nested ones.

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