mysql_legacy_show_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important read-only trait and the fact that a definition is returned. However, it does not describe the return format, behavior for missing tables, or permission requirements, leaving the agent with a minimal but not complete behavioral picture.

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, front-loads the main purpose, and appends the read-only caveat. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity read-only tool, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter positions, and safety trait. However, it omits the return type/structure and any sibling-selection guidance, so an agent may be uncertain about how to interpret the result or when to prefer this over describe_table.

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 compensate. It does this well by embedding both parameters in the SHOW CREATE TABLE <database>.<table> pattern, clarifying their roles and ordering. For two simple string parameters, this is sufficient, though it adds no extra constraints or formats.

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 identifies the action ('Returns the definition'), the exact resource (SHOW CREATE TABLE for a given database.table), and marks the operation as read-only. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like mysql_legacy_describe_table or mysql_legacy_select even without explicitly naming them.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mysql_legacy_describe_table, mysql_legacy_list_tables, or mysql_legacy_list_indexes. The SQL command name implies a use case, but the description does not state it explicitly or provide any exclusions.

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