Create a fixed-row table skeleton for parallel measurements and other fixed-row scenarios. Define row count, columns, and field properties to build a structured table template.
创建固定行数表格骨架。适用于平行测定等固定行场景。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| columns | Yes | ||
| rowCount | Yes | 固定行数，如 2 | |
| parentPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description says 'create' (implying a mutation) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or impact on existing data. It also does not describe what the function returns or how the created skeleton is used. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
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, focused sentence that is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It is not bloated, but it may be too terse to cover necessary information.
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 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely underspecified. It does not cover parameter usage, return values, side effects, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool correctly from the provided information.
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 coverage is only 20% (only rowCount has a description). The description itself does not explain any of the five parameters, including required ones like name, title, columns, and their sub-properties. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving agents to infer parameter purposes from names alone.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a fixed-row table skeleton, and mentions a specific use case (parallel determinations). However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like init_array_table or init_form_table, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool should be chosen.
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 provides a context for use ('suitable for fixed row scenarios like parallel determination'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative siblings. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.