get_resource_schema

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Downloads file (up to 100 MB), opens it in DuckDB, and runs DESCRIBE + per-column DISTINCT sampling. Does NOT return raw rows.' This discloses side effects and limitations. Annotations already set readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so no contradiction.

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 very concise: two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, and the rest adds essential context. Every sentence is informative with no waste.

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?

The description is complete for a reconnaissance tool. It explains what it does, its limitations (no raw rows, file size limit), and how it fits into a workflow. With good annotations and an output schema (implied), nothing is missing.

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% for 3 parameters. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'Distinct values per column to include as samples' but that is already in the schema. 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 explicitly states 'Return column names, inferred types, and sample values for a resource.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('resource schema'), and distinguishes from siblings by recommending use before summarize_resource or aggregate_resource.

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 clear guidance: 'Cheap reconnaissance step' and 'Use this before summarize_resource or aggregate_resource'. It tells when to use (before aggregation) and implies it should not be used to return raw rows.

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