get_table_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search targets 'comments and descriptions' rather than exact table names, indicating a fuzzy-search behavior. However, it omits critical behavioral details: return format (single name vs list), matching logic (substring vs exact), and pagination behavior.

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 bilingual description is efficiently front-loaded with no wasted words. The Chinese-English pairing serves a broad audience without redundancy, and the single sentence structure places the action verb ('Search') and resource ('table names') immediately.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should ideally disclose what the tool returns (e.g., 'returns matching table name(s)'). While the tool name suggests it returns a table name, ambiguity remains regarding single vs. multiple results. The input side is fully covered, but the output side leaves gaps for an agent trying to chain this with get_table_desc.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics: it clarifies that 'text' refers to Chinese table names or descriptions (not English table names), and includes the crucial constraint '仅支持单个查询' (only supports single query), which warns against batch inputs not obvious from the schema alone.

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 searches for table names using Chinese names or descriptions as the search key. It distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_sql (general SQL), get_table_desc (likely requires exact table name), and get_table_index/lock (performance/metadata tools) by specifying its unique fuzzy-search capability based on comments/descriptions.

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 context by specifying the search mechanism (Chinese names/descriptions), suggesting when to use it (when exact table names are unknown). However, it lacks explicit comparisons with siblings like get_table_desc or execute_sql, and doesn't state 'when not to use' or prerequisites.

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