describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it describes schema but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or limitations. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from the description alone.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and additional context is provided efficiently. Every word adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the output format (e.g., list of column names and types, including constraints or primary keys?). It only mentions 'columns and types' vaguely, leaving the agent uncertain about what exactly is returned.

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%, so parameters are documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only noting the MSSQL context and server-level access scenario. This meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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's purpose: 'Describes the schema (columns and types) of a specified MSSQL Database table.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables or profile_table by focusing on schema description.

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 mentions an optional database parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus others (e.g., profile_table, inspect_dependencies). It lacks alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent uncertain about selection.

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