inspect_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions required, or error handling. While inspection is implied, an explicit safe-use note is missing.

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 two sentences: first defines purpose and components, second provides return structure. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description provides a detailed return format. It covers key aspects but omits error handling, performance, or edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that the 'table' parameter is automatically uppercased and should come from list_objects or get_schema_summary, and 'database' from list_databases. This extra context aids correct parameter selection.

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 'full structural details for a single table or view' and lists specific components (column definitions, primary key, indexes, foreign keys). It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_table, get_table_constraints, and get_foreign_keys by promising an aggregated result.

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?

Explicitly recommends preferring this tool over calling multiple separate tools (describe_table + get_table_constraints + get_foreign_keys), providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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