schema_list_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds that table_name is optional and can restrict results, but it doesn't disclose the default schema behavior, error handling, or whether all schemas are considered. The phrase 'the schema' is ambiguous.

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 entire description is a single clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 is simple with an output schema, but the description leaves gaps: it doesn't mention that omitting table_name returns all tables, nor does it explain schema_name. The ambiguity of 'the schema' further lowers completeness.

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. It clarifies table_name as the optional filter ('restrict to one table'), but it never addresses schema_name or its default 'public'. Thus only half of the parameters are semantically explained.

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 ('List') and resource ('columns for tables') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like schema_list_tables and schema_list_views. The phrase 'in the schema' anchors the context.

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 when to use it: to get column information, optionally filtered to one table. It implicitly excludes views and enums by saying 'tables', and the 'Optionally restrict to one table' provides a conditional. However, no explicit alternatives are named.

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