get_table_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the table doesn't exist, or what format the definition will be returned in. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description is perfectly front-loaded and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word directly contributes to stating the tool's basic purpose.

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?

Given that this tool has 2 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no explanation of what a 'table definition' contains, the description is severely incomplete. While the existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, the description fails to address the critical gaps in parameter documentation and behavioral context for a database metadata tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'table' and 'sch' parameters represent or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, leaving them completely undocumented. For a tool with two required parameters, this represents a critical gap in documentation.

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 'Get table definition' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_table_definition' without adding meaningful clarification. It does specify a verb ('Get') and resource ('table definition'), but fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_tables_in_current_schema' or explain what a 'table definition' actually contains (e.g., schema, columns, constraints).

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tools 'execute_query' or 'list_tables_in_current_schema', nor does it explain prerequisites like needing to specify both 'table' and 'sch' parameters. There's no indication of appropriate contexts or exclusions for usage.

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