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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, requires no special permissions, or has no side effects. It also does not discuss how defaults are resolved beyond what the schema already covers. This is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately lists the scope of returned data in parentheses. There is no redundant language, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function. Structure is excellent.

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?

For a simple read-only metadata tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the resource type (table or view) and enumerates the details returned. It does not mention potential errors or performance implications, and because there are no annotations, it could better clarify that it is a non-mutating operation. Overall, it covers the essential aspects an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including the default schema behavior. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters—it merely lists the returned information. Since the schema covers semantics completely, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('a table or view'), and enumerates the exact information returned (columns, types, defaults, nullability, identity, computed). This distinguishes it from describe_procedure and other schema tools like get_indexes or get_constraints. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 it is meant for tables and views, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that describe_procedure should be used for stored procedures, nor does it provide conditions for choosing this tool over other metadata tools. The context is clear but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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