get_table_map

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, performance considerations, or error conditions. The description carries the full burden for transparency but fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices essential details. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (unseen), the description partially covers the purpose. However, it lacks completeness in explaining the input, output, and use case. The sibling context shows many related tools, and the description does not differentiate enough.

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?

The single parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., file path, document ID). With no parameter documentation elsewhere, the description should clarify the parameter semantics.

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 specifies mapping tables with per-cell text and merge structure, and connects to label-to-cell reasoning. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_table or merge_table_cells, but could be more explicit about the output format.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_paragraph_map or other table-related tools. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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