get_table_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Obtiene' implies a read-only operation, but no permissions, rate limits, or performance characteristics are mentioned. The tool likely returns the schema list, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 lists the returned fields, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, given the existence of a sibling tool for schema with relations, the description should clarify that this tool returns basic schema only. Also, no context on error conditions or usage examples.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by listing the returned fields (name, type, nullable, key, default, extra), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explain parameter formats or constraints.

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 retrieves column structure (type, nullable, key, default, extra) of a table. It uses a specific verb ('obtiene' - gets) and resource ('estructura de columnas de una tabla'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_table_schema_with_relations', which might imply more detail.

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 when you need column metadata. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives like 'get_table_schema_with_relations'. Given the sibling, some clarification would help.

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