get_table_schema

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that row data is never included and that DynamoDB matches include a costSignal note. While it covers key behaviors, it could mention performance considerations for large schemas or any rate limits, but overall is sufficiently transparent.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and caveats. It is reasonably concise, though could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (multiple database backends) and lack of output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers what is returned, naming conventions, usage sequence, and exclusions. All essential information for correct use is present.

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% with one parameter, and description adds valuable context: accepts short names, case-insensitive, max 20 items. Also explains how to use the parameter in practice (e.g., 'orders' matches 'public.orders').

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 columns, keys, indexes, and DB-specific details (DynamoDB, MongoDB). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_infra_overview and get_graph_summary by specifying when to use it instead.

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 states when to call (after get_infra_overview, when column-level detail needed for queries) and when not to (for table inventory, use get_infra_overview). Provides clear alternatives and context.

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