databricks-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a read operation ('View'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 very concise—a single phrase with no wasted words—and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from usage notes, but it efficiently communicates the essential action.

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 handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations, 3 undocumented parameters, and multiple sibling tools, it lacks completeness in guiding usage and parameter understanding, making it only minimally viable.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'catalog', 'schema', or 'table' mean in this context, their expected formats, or examples. With 3 required parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves critical gaps.

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 ('View Delta table details') and specifies the resource type ('Delta table'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_table_schema or get_table_history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all table-related siblings, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique scope.

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 like get_table_schema or get_table_history. It mentions the SQL command 'DESCRIBE DETAIL' but doesn't explain what details it provides compared to other table inspection tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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