get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It correctly describes a read operation returning schema info, but does not disclose additional behavior such as authentication requirements, read-only nature (though implied), or potential errors for missing tables. The description is adequate for a simple schema query tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what information it returns, which is sufficient for correct 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 description adds minor value beyond the input schema by mentioning 'specific database table' and listing returned attributes (column names, data types, nullability, constraints). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get the column schema for a specific database table' with specific verb and resource, and lists the returned attributes (column names, data types, nullability, constraints). It distinguishes from siblings (list_tables and query_database) implicitly by focusing on schema rather than table listing or query execution.

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 schema details for a specific table are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_tables for table enumeration, query_database for data retrieval). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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