describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that it describes columns, constraints, and indexes, but does not mention that the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 that provides necessary information without excess. However, it is minimal and could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere) and the parameters are well-documented in the input schema, the description adequately covers the main aspects of the tool. It mentions columns, constraints, and indexes, which is sufficient for a describe operation.

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%, with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a table (columns, constraints, indexes)' clearly states the verb 'describe' and the resource 'table', and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_tables (which only lists names) or execute_query (which runs arbitrary SQL).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or execute_query. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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