describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Describe' and the psql \d+ comparison clearly indicate a read-only metadata inspection operation rather than a mutation or query execution. It also sets return expectations by enumerating the output contents, though it does not discuss permissions or missing-table 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and object, then adds the useful psql \d+ analogy for extra 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?

For a one-parameter metadata tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what input is needed and what output to expect. It does not explicitly address schema-qualified table names, but the psql \d+ equivalence and the listed output types are sufficient for confident invocation.

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 already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage ('Table name to describe'), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. The tool is simple enough that this baseline is acceptable.

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 verb ('describe') and the specific resource contents (columns, types, constraints, indexes). The psql \d+ equivalence gives the tool a concrete, recognizable identity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query, list_tables, and table_sizes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need a table's full structural metadata, equivalent to psql \d+. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a top score, but the usage intent is immediately clear.

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