base_tableAffinity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the persist parameter's behavior (materialization and table name return) but does not disclose if the tool is inherently read-only or what side effects occur when persist is false. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every piece of text is useful without redundancy.

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 description lacks details about the default return format (when persist is false). With no output schema, it should specify what 'tables commonly used together' means in terms of output structure. No error conditions or edge cases are mentioned.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description merely repeats parameter names and descriptions already in the schema, adding no extra context such as validation rules, examples, or parameter relationships.

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 action ('Get tables commonly used together') and the resource (tables), with a helpful hint about inferring relationships. It distinguishes from sibling table tools like base_tableList or base_tableUsage by focusing on co-occurrence rather than listing or metadata.

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 (e.g., graph_analyseDatabase for relationship inference or base_tableUsage for table usage statistics). There are no explicit contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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