list_tables_detailed

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, its performance characteristics, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the implied retrieval.

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, which is concise but overly sparse. It does not earn its place by adding value; it could be expanded with a brief explanation of 'comprehensive' without becoming verbose. Adequate but not efficient in communication.

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 tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a tool named 'detailed' with a generic description, more context about the scope of information (e.g., includes schema, partitions, constraints) would improve completeness. The current description is just adequate.

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is trivial. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning but is not deficient given the absence of parameters.

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 states 'Get comprehensive table information,' which identifies the verb and resource but the term 'comprehensive' is vague. It does not specify what aspects are covered (e.g., schema, size, metadata), nor does it differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_tables', which likely provides less detail.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tables' or 'get_table_details'. The description lacks context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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