ecp_mysql_list_columns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns only metadata and not row data, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the exact return format (e.g., column names, types), whether the operation is read-only, or error conditions. For a simple metadata read, this is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose and the key differentiator ('no row data'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of information. It does not specify what information about columns is returned (e.g., names, types, nullability), nor does it mention prerequisites or error behavior. Given the large number of sibling tools and the lack of output schema, the description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 for the parameters. It does not mention db_name or table_name at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning, constraints, or format hints. This is a significant gap given the 0% 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List a table's columns'. It also explicitly says 'metadata only, no row data', which differentiates it from ecp_mysql_browse_rows and other row-returning tools. The name includes 'mysql' and 'columns', making it distinct from ecp_mssql_list_columns and ecp_postgres_list_columns. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context: it lists column metadata, not row data. This implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool when row data is needed, pointing toward ecp_mysql_browse_rows. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over other list tools (e.g., ecp_mysql_table_sizes) or name alternatives. It is clear enough for a simple metadata operation.

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