get_table_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is retrieved (columns and indexes) but does not mention safety (read-only), required permissions, or limitations (e.g., no constraints or foreign keys).

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, efficient sentence—'Get columns and indexes for a PostgreSQL table.'—with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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's simplicity, the output schema exists (so return values need not be described), but the description omits important context like default behavior of the 'schema' parameter and the requirement that the table must exist. It is minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information beyond the parameter names. It does not explain that 'schema' defaults to 'public' or that 'table_name' is case-sensitive, providing no semantic value over the input schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'columns and indexes for a PostgreSQL table'. It distinguishes from siblings 'execute_query' (execute SQL) and 'explain_query' (show query plan) by specifying exactly what artifact is retrieved.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_query' or 'explain_query'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., table must exist) or context in which this tool is preferred.

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