get_table_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool returns (columns, data types, keys) which is useful, but it doesn't disclose any potential limitations, error conditions, or permission requirements. However, since it's a read-only 'get' operation looks safe, and it does mention the scope (specific table/view), it provides some transparency. It doesn't contradict anything, but could be more explicit about behavior beyond just the result content.

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?

One clear sentence, immediate verb and resource, no fluff.

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 simplicity (2 params, read-only) and presence of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention when to use this versus get_database_schema, but for a focused tool, it's adequate. It doesn't describe error conditions or authorization, but those are less critical for a read-only get. I'd give a 4 because it's not missing significant context.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description doesn't add any new information about parameters beyond what's in the schema. So baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: retrieving a detailed schema definition for a specific table or view, listing the key components (columns, data types, primary keys, foreign keys). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables (lists tables) and get_database_schema (likely broader).

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 when to use it (when you need schema details of a table), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_database_schema or list_tables, nor does it mention any cautionary notes such as when not to use it. It's clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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