table_current_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current row' but does not explain how the current row is defined, what happens if none exists, whether it errors, or what 'tested table' implies. It also does not clarify if this is a read-only operation or if there are side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and output format. It is not verbose and wastes no words, though it omits necessary details. The brevity is appropriate for the simple getter nature, but it sacrifices completeness.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. There is no output schema, so the return format 'key/value text mapping' is only vaguely defined. There is no information about error handling, what 'tested table' refers to, or how the current row is selected. For an agent to call this correctly, it would need additional context from the environment or sibling tools.

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 explain the parameters. It does not mention 'name', 'title', or 'session_id' at all, leaving the agent without any idea of how to identify the table or session. The description adds zero value beyond the schema field names.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'current row of a tested table', and the output format 'key/value text mapping'. It distinguishes from siblings like table_rows (which likely returns all rows) and table_selected_rows (selected rows), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling table tools (e.g., table_rows, table_selected_rows, table_cell_text). There is no mention of prerequisites like a current row existing, nor any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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