Get base schema

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already covering the safe, non-mutating behavior, the description adds valuable context by specifying that the tool returns tables, fields, and views—clarifying the exact scope of what the operation exposes. It does not describe error behavior or pagination, but these are less critical given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'List tables, fields, and views for a base.' Every word earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values do not need description), and annotations cover safety. The description covers the core operation adequately, and nothing else appears necessary for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema defines a single baseId parameter with only a type and minLength constraint; schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a base' hints at the parameter's purpose but does not explain how to obtain or format baseId, nor does it mention that baseId is required. Minimal compensation at best.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resources 'tables, fields, and views' for a 'base', making its function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_bases and list_records by focusing on schema structure rather than data or base listings.

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?

The description implies usage (if you need the schema of a base, this is the tool), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_bases or mention any exclusions/prerequisites. No 'when' or 'when not' guidance is provided, relying on the name and description to convey intent.

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