read_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 delivers: it discloses the exact output format, the metadata line structure, the 12-char hash extraction rule, and what to do on STALE_READ. This goes well beyond a generic 'reads a table' statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then metadata format, then stale-read handling, then arguments. It is somewhat long, but every sentence carries useful information and the structure is logical. Slightly tighter phrasing could earn a 5.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains output format, how to use the returned hash, how to recover from version conflicts, and what each parameter means. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate—and it fully does. file_path is defined as 'Absolute path to the Markdown file' and table_index as '0-based table index from list_tables (the number after T).' Both parameters are given meaning and context beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Read a full table as a clean pipe table with version hash.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is the read operation ('Prefer this over reading files directly') and by covering what other table tools do not (HTML tables, inline formatting, version hash).

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?

It explicitly says to prefer this over reading files directly and gives a concrete use case ('returns the version hash needed for any edit'). It also provides recovery guidance for STALE_READ. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search_tables or clarify when search would be more appropriate than a full read, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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