table_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds a useful behavioral fact: rows are returned as key/value mappings and are scoped to a tested table. However, it does not disclose effects of the limit parameter, how the table is identified, whether this is strictly read-only, or what happens when no table is available.

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 with no filler and gets straight to the action. It loses a point only because 'tested table' is vague and the sentence is too terse relative to the number of unexplained parameters.

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 five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: parameter roles, result cardinality, limit behavior, and table selection are all missing. A competent agent could guess the basics but not reliably invoke this tool correctly in varied situations.

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%, and the description names none of the five parameters. An agent cannot infer how 'name', 'title', 'limit', 'compact', or 'session_id' affect the result, so the description provides no compensating semantics for the undocumented 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 clear action ('Return rows') and resource ('rows of a tested table') and specifies the result shape ('key/value mappings'), so an agent can tell this is about reading table rows rather than modifying them. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like table_current_row or table_selected_rows, and 'tested table' is somewhat ambiguous, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use table_rows versus the many sibling table_* tools such as table_find_row, table_current_row, or table_selected_rows. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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