describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, what happens when the table does not exist, whether privileges are needed, or how the columns are returned. Only the trivially implied 'inspect' behavior is conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose with a short Args block; nothing is padded. The Args block is mildly redundant with the input schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool that has an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It is nonetheless thin on the behavioral edges (missing table, permissions) that an agent calling against a live MySQL instance would want.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does some work by explaining table_name as the 'Name of the table to inspect.' However, this largely duplicates the schema's own title ('Table Name') and adds no format, casing, or qualification details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Describe the columns of a MySQL table.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_tables, list_indexes, or find_column because it targets table column metadata. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling, but the resource is specific enough for selection.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find_column or execute_query. The agent must infer that this is a schema-inspection step, which is a natural but unstated usage condition.

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