table_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses operations and includes notes about '含引用' (with reference) for get_row and get_cell, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or behavior for unlisted operations like query_rows.

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 well-structured with headers and bullet points, efficiently conveying operations and parameters. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to repeated notes like '含引用' and could be tightened.

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 complexity (14 parameters, multiple operations, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It ignores the query_rows operation and many parameters. The output schema exists but is not explained. Examples cover only three operations, leaving gaps.

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 0%, yet the description only explains a subset of parameters (operation, table_id, rows, row, row_index, column_name, value). It omits crucial parameters like row_id, offset, limit, search, filters, include_coverage, and selected_columns, which are needed for query operations.

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 it manipulates table data (rows and cells) and lists specific operations. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'docx_table' or 'table_manage', reducing clarity for distinguishing when to use this tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when to choose one operation over another. It lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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