Sample table rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns rows, omitting important traits like non-destructiveness, error handling (e.g., nonexistent table), performance, or that it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage context) though still efficient.

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 simplicity (preview rows) and absence of output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't mention output format defaults or that preview is limited to first rows. It provides enough context for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or usage context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't elevate understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('first rows of a table'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like count_rows (counts rows) and describe_table (schema). It also states the intent ('quick preview, to understand the data before querying'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context ('before querying') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives to sibling tools. It offers some guidance but lacks exclusion criteria or comparative advice.

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