workbench-mcp

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. It mentions 'discover' and 'optional filtering,' but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are structured (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a metadata discovery tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Discover tables and columns') and follows with key parameter context. There is no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, metadata discovery), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters but lacks behavioral details and explicit usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is limited by gaps in transparency and parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'optional filtering by schema or keyword search,' which partially explains 'schema_name' and 'search_term,' but omits 'limit' entirely and provides no details on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions. With 3 parameters and low coverage, the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Discover tables and columns' specifies both the verb (discover) and resources (tables, columns). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'describe_object' or 'preview_query' by focusing on metadata discovery rather than object details or query execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools not in the sibling list.

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 usage context through 'optional filtering by schema or keyword search,' suggesting when to use these parameters. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'describe_object' or 'preview_query,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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