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. It discloses the output scope (columns, types, nullability) but does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, any potential errors, or performance considerations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary padding.

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 tool is simple, and the output schema presumably defines the return format, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, usage, and basic behavior. It is complete enough for a straightforward 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'table' or 'schema' parameters. While 'table' is implied, 'schema' (with a default of 'public') is not mentioned at all, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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: to describe a table's columns, types, and nullability. This is a specific action on a specific resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_tables' (which lists tables) and 'sample_rows' (which returns data).

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 explicitly says 'Use this before writing a query against an unfamiliar table,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives, but this is sufficient for a simple introspection tool.

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