db.describe_table

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

No annotations are present, and the description uses the verb 'describe,' which reasonably implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the table must exist, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words or extraneous details, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 describe operation, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not specify the output format, what fields the schema includes, or how errors like missing tables are handled, which could leave an agent uncertain in edge cases.

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 parameter 'tableName' is self-explanatory by name and constrained to a non-empty string, but the description adds no additional meaning about expected format, case sensitivity, or identifier rules beyond the basic schema.

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 ('describe') and the resource ('schema of a specific table'), making the primary purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool db.list_tables, but the focus on a specific table rather than all tables provides implicit contrast.

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 usage when a schema for one specific table is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over db.list_tables or provide any contextual guidance or prerequisites.

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