describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'get detailed information' but does not specify that it is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description to clarify return structure.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the verb, but it is too terse and omits critical information about parameters and usage. Conciseness alone does not justify missing necessary content.

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?

Despite having an output schema that could reduce the burden of describing return values, the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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 description does not mention any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and two parameters (table_name, schema_name), it fails to explain their purpose, which is essential for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'detailed information about a table's structure', which is distinguishable from siblings like 'show_tables' (list tables) and 'show_indexes' (show indexes). However, it could be more specific about what details are included (e.g., columns, data types, constraints).

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 'sql_query' to retrieve schema information. There are no prerequisites, when-to-use, or when-not-to-use instructions.

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