tables_db_list_columns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe key traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it supports pagination or sorting, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, filtering capabilities via queries), and usage context relative to siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to effectively invoke and interpret results.

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 the three parameters (database_id, table_id, queries). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that columns are listed for a given table, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline score of 3, as 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 'List columns in the table' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('columns'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tables_db_get_column' (which retrieves a single column) or 'tables_db_list_tables' (which lists tables), leaving room for ambiguity about scope.

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 a database_id and table_id), contrast with 'tables_db_get_column' for single-column retrieval, or specify use cases like filtering columns. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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