get_schema

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what the schema includes, what happens for unknown tables, whether access is required, or what the response format will be.

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 declarative sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, this is minimally viable: it states the operation and target. However, it omits return expectations and useful context such as linking to list_tables for discovering valid table names, leaving notable gaps for an agent to call it confidently.

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 needed to clarify the 'table' parameter. It only restates the concept of 'a given table' in English and adds no details about valid values, naming conventions, or how to discover available tables.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('the schema for a given table'), which distinguishes it in kind from siblings like query and list_tables. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource type is evident enough.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus query or list_tables. The intended use is implied by the tool name and one-line description, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are provided.

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