word_read_table_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool reads data and enumerates exactly what is returned (row/col counts, cell text, paraIds), indicating no destructive side effects. It does not cover error conditions for invalid table_index, but the read nature is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides a comprehensive overview of the tool's output for a table reading tool, mentioning row/col counts and per-cell text/paraIds. It omits edge cases like merged cells or empty tables, but given the simple parameter set and lack of output schema, it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents file_path and table_index. The description adds no extra information about parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 without needing to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' on a table resource, clearly stating it returns row/col counts and each cell's text and paraIds. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_read_table_cell, which reads a single cell, and other table operations.

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 reading full table structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of word_read_table_cell or other alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternate tools, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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