Combined MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions authentication via 'db_user' and permissions via 'db_group', it doesn't describe what 'detailed information' includes beyond columns and data types, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool with authentication parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated; however, every sentence adds value (e.g., clarifying parameter roles). Minor room for improvement in flow, but overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with 4 parameters (including authentication) and no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling). The description is adequate but has clear gaps in usage guidelines and transparency.

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 meaningful context for all parameters: 'schema' and 'table' are clearly identified as names, 'db_user' is explained as 'for authentication', and 'db_group' as 'Optional database group for permissions'. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, providing purpose and usage hints for each parameter.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a Redshift table including columns and data types'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables (which likely lists names only) or run_query (which executes queries). The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for metadata inspection vs. data retrieval) or differentiate it from siblings like list_tables or run_query. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool references are included.

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