getTable

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context by specifying the required scope ('tables:read') and explicitly marking it as read-only, which helps the agent understand permission needs and safety. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, preventing a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details like the corresponding API endpoint and requirements. It uses only two sentences with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, scope requirement, and read-only nature, which are key for a simple retrieval tool. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return type (e.g., table details object), slightly limiting completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'tableId' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Gets details about') and resource ('a Tulip Table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'getTableRecord' or 'listTables', which might also retrieve table-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires `tables:read` scope') and indicates it's read-only, which provides some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'listTables' for listing multiple tables or 'getTableRecord' for individual records, leaving usage 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.