sort_table

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by explaining auto-backup to .ks4w-backups slots, backup=False semantics, atomic validated save, and Word-open refusal. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking the 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?

Three dense sentences deliver the purpose, coordinate convention, backup behavior, atomic save guarantee, and refusal conditions with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, making the description efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The output schema is present, so explaining return values is unnecessary. The description covers the core operation, coordinate semantics, backup/atomicity, and key failure modes. However, the 0% schema description coverage leaves several boolean parameters under-specified, which keeps it just shy of fully complete.

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% across 7 parameters. The description adds meaning only for column as a 0-based CELL index and partially for backup as skipping rotation only. Numeric, descending, has_header, table_index, and file_path remain undocumented beyond their names and defaults, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'Sort data rows by a column (CELL index, 0-based).' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many table mutation and insertion siblings. The cell-index detail adds precision that prevents confusion with column-name-based sorting.

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 provides clear usage context for sorting table rows and explicitly names refusal conditions: vertical merges making rows interdependent and documents open in Word. It does not name an alternative sort tool, but no sibling appears to duplicate this operation, so the guidance is sufficient.

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