Create a matrix layout of table rows and cells within a form. Specify name, title, rows, and cols to generate the table structure for template editing.
创建表单内 Table/TableRow/TableCell 矩阵布局。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cols | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| rows | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| parentPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that a matrix layout is created but gives no information about side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing tables, whether it's reversible), required permissions, or what happens to existing form structure. Lacks any behavioral detail beyond the bare action.
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, short sentence – very concise. However, conciseness is not a virtue when it omits critical information. It is too under-specified to be considered well-structured for an agent's needs.
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 tool with 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It offers no context on parameter semantics, usage conditions, or expected effects, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
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, but it provides no explanation of parameters such as name, title, rows, cols, or parentPath. The agent cannot infer parameter meaning or relationships from the description.
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 states a clear purpose ('创建表单内 Table/TableRow/TableCell 矩阵布局' – create a Table/TableRow/TableCell matrix within a form), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from closely related siblings like init_array_table or init_array_fix_table, nor does it clarify what 'matrix layout' entails relative to other table-initialization tools.
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. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer context from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.