get_table_schema

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It explains behavior: accepts short names, case-insensitive, row data never included. Could mention permissions or error handling but overall sufficient for a read-only schema tool.

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?

Three concise sentences with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by details and usage guidelines. Excellent structure.

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?

Description explains what the output schema includes (columns, keys, indexes) and mentions constraints (max 20 tables). No output schema exists, so this is adequate. Could include error cases but overall complete for its purpose.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'tables'. Description adds value by explaining short name matching and case-insensitivity, which is beyond the schema's basic description.

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 returns full schema for specific tables/collections, listing included details (columns, keys, indexes, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings get_infra_overview (table inventory) and get_graph_summary (every schema).

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('after get_infra_overview when you need column-level detail') and when not ('Do NOT call for a table inventory; use get_infra_overview'). Provides alternatives (get_graph_summary for pulling every schema).

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