get_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is important behavioral context. It also discloses scope limitations: body-level tables only and the meaning of table_index relative to list_tables order. It does not cover error behavior for invalid indices, but the read-only disclosure and scope constraints are substantial.

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 front-loaded: core behavior first, then indexing semantics, then routing to sibling tools, then read-only confirmation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

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 a two-parameter schema and an output schema already present, the description covers everything needed to invoke correctly: what is read, how to identify the table, the body-level limitation, the nested-table alternative, and the safety profile. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 adds valuable semantics for table_index: 0-based and in list_tables order. However, file_path is not elaborated beyond its name, so one of the two parameters still relies on inference rather than explicit documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Read one body-level table in full,' and enumerates exactly what is included. It is clearly distinguished from get_nested_table by the body-level qualifier, so an agent can pick it without reading sibling schemas.

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 states the precise use case: reading complete body-level tables, keyed to list_tables order. It explicitly names get_nested_table as the alternative for tables nested in a cell and names set_cells/set_cells_block as the write counterparts, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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