get_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the returned components and notes the lookup can be by ref or code, which clarifies the operation. It does not mention prerequisites like an open model, error behaviors, or response shape, but for a read-only detail lookup the disclosed scope is reasonably complete.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the purpose and then lists the exact detail categories. Every word contributes value; no filler or redundancy.

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 description gives a good overview of what will be returned, but with no output schema and zero schema documentation for the two parameters, an agent still lacks format details for model_id and table_ref. This is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves key invocation details unstated.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It adds that table_ref can be a ref or code, but it does not explain what model_id refers to or the accepted formats for either parameter. This is insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

States a specific resource ('one table/entity') and a concrete action ('get full detail'), and itemizes the returned content: columns, keys, primary key, indexes, and references. This clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like list_tables/search_tables and narrower ones like get_column.

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 when-to-use or alternative-selection guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to prefer this over list_tables or search_tables, nor when get_column or get_key would be more appropriate.

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