get_table_sample

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'small sample' but does not specify the default limit, that it is read-only, or any authentication requirements. The lack of detail about the return behavior (e.g., row count, data format) leaves the agent uninformed.

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 (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose. However, it is too brief to convey necessary detail, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the return value looks like, how many rows are fetched, or any prerequisites (e.g., that the table must exist). The tool requires 5 parameters, but nothing is said about their roles or constraints.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are present in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning to parameters like connection_id, table_name, limit, schema, or database. It fails to explain what each parameter does, leaving the agent without context beyond the schema's basic types and defaults.

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's purpose: 'Fetch a small sample from a table for schema discovery.' It specifies the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'table sample', and the phrase 'for schema discovery' distinguishes it from siblings like run_select (generic querying) and describe_table (schema structure only).

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 any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_table or run_select. The phrase 'for schema discovery' implies a specific use case, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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