describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool describes table structure but doesn't reveal what that entails (e.g., column names, types, constraints), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if the table doesn't exist), or any permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with database metadata.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (interacting with database metadata), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'estructura' includes (e.g., schema details), potential outputs, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with these gaps, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'table_name' well-documented in the schema as 'Nombre de la tabla a describir'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 'Describe la estructura de una tabla' clearly states the tool's purpose: describing a table's structure. It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('tabla'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'execute_query' beyond the structural focus. The Spanish phrasing is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_tables' (which might list table names) or 'execute_query' (which might retrieve data), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for describing table structure versus other operations.

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