Get Table Info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds concrete behavioral context: active workbook/sheet defaults are explained, and the return JSON is specified as column names, range, row count, and style. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and well organized with a one-line summary, explicit Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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 read-only metadata tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is largely complete: it defines all parameters, states return fields, and clarifies active-context defaults. The only meaningful gap is the required/schema mismatch and the absence of error behavior if the table does not exist.

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 Args section gives useful meaning to all three parameters, including 'None = active workbook' and 'None = active sheet', which the schema does not explain. However, it states table_name is 'required' while the schema defaults it to null and context signals count 0 required parameters, creating a conflicting signal.

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 summary line 'Get a table's structure: columns, range, and style' clearly names the verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates from siblings like get_table_data by emphasizing structural metadata rather than cell values, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as list_tables or get_table_data, nor does it give exclusions. The intended use is implied by the one-liner, but there is no routing guidance or alternative recommendation.

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