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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves schema information but doesn't describe what that includes (e.g., column names, types, constraints), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if the table doesn't exist), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 concise with two sentences, but the structure could be improved. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the second sentence is formatted as an 'Args:' section, which might be redundant with the input schema. It's front-loaded but includes unnecessary formatting that doesn't add value beyond the schema.

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 complexity of a schema retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., JSON structure, error handling), making it hard for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It adds minimal meaning by specifying that 'table_name' is the 'name of the table to describe', but this is basic and doesn't provide details like format, constraints, or examples. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, this is inadequate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schema information for a specific table'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' (which might list table names without schema details) or 'read_query' (which might execute queries rather than describe structure), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'export_table_query', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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