get_table_schema

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that table_name must be uppercase and that output includes column attributes, but omits read-only nature, error behavior for missing tables, performance implications, or any side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys purpose and key constraint. However, could be slightly more structured with a separate sentence for usage conditions.

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 no output schema and only one parameter, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (column details) and input requirement (uppercase table name). It lacks mention of ordering or filtering, which is acceptable for a simple schema retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that table_name must be uppercase and for Oracle, and that the output includes specific column attributes. This clarifies input semantics and expected result.

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 'get' and resource 'table schema', listing the exact output columns (column name, data type, length, nullable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists table names) or get_table_indexes.

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 when you need column details for a known table, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like query_db or search_tables. It mentions table_name must be uppercase, but no exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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