get_table_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It mentions returning schema and sample data, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or any side effects. A simple get operation is inferred, but lacking explicit safety guarantees.

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 short and uses a clear docstring format (Args, Returns). However, the Returns section is vague ('detailed table information') and could be more specific. No wasted sentences.

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 operates in a database context with many sibling tools. The description gives a high-level idea but does not specify what 'detailed information' includes beyond schema and sample data, nor how it differs from get_database_schema or get_column_stats.

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 (the schema's title 'Table Name' only restates the name), the description adds little: 'Name of the table to inspect' is still vague. No details on required format, allowed values, or impact of incorrect input.

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 detailed information about a specific table,' specifying the action (get) and resource (table). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_database_schema or get_column_stats, which might overlap.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for individual table details, but no exclusion criteria or sibling references are provided.

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