table_to_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It describes the operation (pulling a table into JSON) and the default selector, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, or permissions needed. While likely non-destructive, this is not confirmed.

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 two sentences long with no waste. It front-loads the key fact (alias for extract_table) and concisely provides output structure and usage context.

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 simple alias tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output format, and usage hint. It could mention that it requires a page with a table, but that is implied by being an alias for extract_table.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, specifying 'Optional CSS selector matching the <table> element (default: table)'. The description adds the default value again but no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it is an alias for extract_table, defaults to the first table, and outputs a specific JSON structure. It clearly differentiates itself by being a convenience tool.

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?

It advises using this tool when an agent expects a table-to-JSON convenience tool, implying ease of use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like extract_table, extract_cards, or extract_list, nor does it state when not to use it.

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