get_table_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it doesn't explicitly address permissions, error conditions, or side effects. However, the tool is simple and the omission isn't critical, so it stays at a baseline adequate level.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output details without redundancy.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (columns, types, constraints) and has a single clearly described parameter. Without an output schema or annotations, this is sufficient, though slightly more detail about error handling or return format could be useful.

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 schema fully describes the tableName parameter (100% coverage), so the description does not add meaning beyond what is already provided. The description's mention of schema contents relates to the return value, not the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves a table's schema/structure, specifying the included elements (column names, types, constraints). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or get_table_stats, which have different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when you need a table's schema), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It could have indicated use cases for sibling tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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