table_goto_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'move cursor', omitting what happens when the row is not found, whether the row is selected, whether the table scrolls, or whether content must be loaded first. The meaning of 'tested' is also unexplained.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. However, the word 'tested' adds confusion rather than clarity and would require further definition to be genuinely effective.

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 tool with six parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It does not explain how to identify the target table (via `name`/`title`), how to scope text search (`limit`, `session_id`), or what the resulting behavior should be. Given the complexity, more operational detail is required.

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 for all six parameters. It only loosely maps `text` to 'containing text' and `occurrence` to 'Nth', while `name`, `limit`, `title`, and `session_id` are left unexplained. The ambiguous 'tested' does not clarify the `name`/`title` search 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: move cursor to an Nth table row containing given text, which distinguishes it at a high level from siblings like `table_current_row` or `table_find_row`. However, the term 'tested' is unexplained and could confuse the exact row condition, so it is not fully crisp.

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 given on when to use this tool rather than similar siblings such as `table_find_row`, `table_move_row`, or `table_current_row`. The description does not mention typical use cases, preconditions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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