read_parquet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function and does not disclose side effects, whether it creates a new table or overwrites existing data, or if it is read-only. No behavioral traits beyond the name are revealed.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though perhaps too sparse to be fully helpful.

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?

Despite the output schema existing, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'table' concept, the purpose of table_name, or any constraints on filepath. Given the low schema coverage, the description should provide more context.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters filepath and table_name. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention either parameter or clarify their roles.

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 (read) and the resource (Parquet file) and the result (into a table). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like query or list_tables, though it does not explicitly contrast with read_csv.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether this should be used for local files vs. remote, or how it relates to read_csv or query.

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