get_table_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (2D array of strings), which is helpful, but does not mention error handling, edge cases (e.g., empty table), or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the output format. 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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the output format, which is crucial since there is no output schema. Minor missing details like behavior on invalid indices or empty tables.

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 100% with both parameters having clear descriptions (1-based indexing). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 reads all data from a table and returns it as a 2D array of strings. It uses a specific verb ('Reads'), a specific resource ('data from a table'), and specifies the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_table_data.

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 when to use this tool (to read table data) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. With sibling tools like set_table_data being obviously different, the lack of explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use leaves room for improvement.

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