pg_describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits: no indication of side effects (it is read-only but unstated), error handling for missing table/schema, or any other constraints. The description is too terse to be transparent.

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, well-formed sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits critical context such as what happens if the table or schema does not exist, whether the operation is safe (read-only), and the return format. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 input schema already describes two of three parameters (schema and connectionId) with default values, giving 67% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions; it only mentions 'specified schema' but does not elaborate on the `table` parameter or its format.

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: 'Describe the columns of a table in the specified schema of a configured Postgres connection.' It uses a specific verb ('describe') and identifies the resource ('columns of a table'), and it naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like pg_query or pg_list_tables.

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 you need column info) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pg_list_tables for listing tables, pg_query for executing arbitrary SQL). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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