Bytebase: describe table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals what the tool returns (columns, indexes, foreign keys) but does not state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or require any special permissions. It also omits potential side effects or limitations. For a metadata retrieval tool, this is a notable gap since the agent cannot infer safety from annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full definition of one table') and then lists the specific elements included. There is no redundant or filler content, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple describe operation, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (columns, types, nullability, indexes, foreign keys) and the schema covers the required parameters. Without an output schema, this description sufficiently communicates the expected result. It does not mention output format or any caveats, but these are minor for this use case.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters: 'database' provides an example format, and 'table' says it's the exact table name. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond the schema. It does not provide additional context about parameter formats or inter-dependencies, so a baseline of 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 describes a table and enumerates its contents: columns with types and nullability, indexes, and foreign keys. This distinguishes it from siblings like bytebase_search_tables (which finds tables) and bytebase_query (which executes queries). The verb 'describe' and the resource 'table' are specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving table schema details, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of alternatives. There is no mention of using bytebase_search_tables to find a table before describing it, or that this is a read-only operation. The context is clear from the name, but no explicit guidance on when/when-not is provided.

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