get_castable_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond 'fetch rows', but it does imply a read-only behavior. Given annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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. It front-loads the purpose and includes a useful detail about column names. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool. It could mention pagination or row limits, but the schema already covers that. The tool is straightforward, so the description is adequately complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning parameters are well-described in the schema (e.g., limit, start, server_id, table_name, caslib_name). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'with column names' which is not directly tied to a parameter. Since schema covers parameters fully, baseline 3 is set.

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 'Fetch rows from a CAS table with column names' clearly states the action (fetch rows) and resource (a CAS table), and hints at the result including column names. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the name and description align with table data retrieval, distinguishing it from list_castables or get_castable_columns which list metadata.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving table data but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like list_castables, get_castable_columns, or query_data. No guidance on use cases or exclusions is provided. Since the name and description are clear, the usage context is implied but not explicit.

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