tables_db_get_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the response format ('JSON object with the row data'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a database tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant, though the second about the response format could be integrated more tightly. There's no wasted text, making it efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 database retrieval tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, pagination, or how optional parameters like 'queries' and 'transaction_id' affect behavior, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3. No value is added to explain parameter interactions or usage nuances.

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 action ('Get a row') and resource ('by its unique ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tables_db_get' or 'tables_db_list_rows' that might also retrieve row data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'tables_db_list_rows' for multiple rows or 'tables_db_get' for database metadata, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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