tabular_document_state_display

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Return the state display' and 'when exposed by 1C'. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the field is not exposed, error conditions, or return format, which is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core action along with the key condition ('when exposed by 1C') is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity itself contributes to the lack of completeness in other dimensions.

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?

This tool has no output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a moderately specific purpose among many similar tabular/state tools. The description is far too thin for an agent to call it correctly; it does not explain input fields, return value, or edge cases, so the agent will likely guess.

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 by explaining what name, title, and session_id mean. It does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent with no semantic information beyond parameter names and defaults.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and names a specific resource ('state display of a tabular document field'), which is more specific than generic siblings like tabular_document_text or field_dropdown_state. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from these siblings beyond the resource name, 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tabular_document_text or field_dropdown_state. The phrase 'when exposed by 1C' hints at a condition but does not explain when that condition holds, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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