get_object_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the object does not exist, whether a database needs to be selected, or any side effects. The description only states what is returned, not how the tool behaves.

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 short and under-specified. While it has no wasted words, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and lacks essential details about the tool's operation. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity, making it closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the response looks like, how to use the parameters together, or any constraints. The description barely covers the core purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to choose and invoke this tool appropriately.

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 only 25% (only 'db' has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning or purpose of parameters like object_name, schema_name, or object_type. The phrase 'table/view' gives a slight hint that object_type might default to table, but it doesn't clarify the enum values or the required schema_name. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 returns columns and indexes for a table or view, which is a specific resource and information type. However, it omits the fact that object_type can also be sequence or extension, so it's not fully aligned with the schema. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_objects by implying detailed column/index metadata.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_objects or execute_sql. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction.

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