describe_table

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. It only states that the tool shows the schema; it does not clarify what parts of the schema are returned (columns, types, constraints, indexes), whether it is strictly read-only, or how it handles nonexistent tables. This is a minimal disclosure with notable gaps.

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 sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a simple introspection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what input it needs. A small gap is that it does not describe the exact shape of the returned schema, but 'estrutura (schema)' conveys the essential output concept.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'table' is already documented as 'Nome da tabela a ser descrita'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose: showing the structure/schema of a specific table. It names both the action ('Mostra a estrutura') and the resource ('uma tabela específica'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables that operate at a different scope.

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 the tool: whenever you need the schema of a particular table. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_tables to enumerate tables first or execute_select to inspect data.

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