table_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether delete is irreversible, whether create requires permissions), token usage for resume, or error handling. The resume operation is described only as 'Token-efficient' without detail. The behavioral traits are not sufficiently described.

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 long (over 30 lines) with repeated formatting and emoji. It is structured into sections (Operations, Args, Examples), which helps readability, but each sentence is not necessarily earning its place. The arguments list is verbose with brackets and default values that could be omitted or merged.

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 complexity (18 parameters, 9 operations, no annotations), the description is not complete. It does not explain return values or what the output schema contains, does not cover all parameters, and lacks context on errors, authorization, or the resume operation's token efficiency. The offset and artifact_only parameters are entirely missing from the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by listing parameters with brief explanations and indicating which operation they apply to (e.g., [create] intent, [preview] limit). However, it omits some schema parameters like offset, artifact_only, and ctx, and the explanations are minimal (e.g., column_type: '欄位類型'). The examples help, but coverage is incomplete.

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 is for table management with a list of operations (create, delete, list, preview, etc.). It uses specific verbs for each operation, and the title '表格管理工具' reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like table_cite or table_data, which also deal with tables.

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 lists operations and their associated arguments but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use table_manage vs. plan_table). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and no comparison with siblings.

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