tables_db_get_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves table metadata as a JSON object, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not explicit), error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if IDs are invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('Get a table by its unique ID') and followed by a brief note on the response format. Every sentence earns its place with no waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (simple retrieval with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and response format but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases, permissions) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations, it should do more to compensate, but it meets minimum viability.

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%, with both parameters (database_id and table_id) documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these IDs are 'unique' for retrieval, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get a table by its unique ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (table). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tables_db_list_tables' (list multiple) and 'tables_db_get_row' (get row instead of table), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but lacks explicit 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing database_id and table_id), nor does it compare with siblings like 'tables_db_list_tables' for browsing or 'tables_db_get' for other resources. Usage is implied by the action but without explicit context.

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