get_table_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what the tool returns and notes it is used for field validation, but it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or confirm read-only behavior beyond the verb 'Get'. It adds meaningful context but falls short of full transparency.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose with a detailed breakdown of content, and the second gives actionable usage advice. There is no redundancy or filler; it is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the schema contains, how to use table_id (via schema), and why to call it before mutations. This is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 schema description for table_id ('Table ID, from list_tables') already covers the parameter fully, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter's format or usage, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool 'Get full schema for a table' and enumerates exactly what the schema includes (fields/columns, types, options, relational fields with linkFieldId). This is a specific verb+resource formulation that distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables or get_record.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this before creating/updating records so you know valid field names and link field ids.' This provides clear contextual guidance for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but none are obvious for schema retrieval, so the context is sufficient.

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