mysql_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 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's safe for production use, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., columns, data types). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, scoring a 2.

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: 'Get table structure and schema information.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's function, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 (describing table schemas), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or usage context. It's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but leaves gaps in practical application, scoring a 3.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (table and database). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'structure and schema information' entails or how parameters affect the output. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance it.

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 'Get table structure and schema information' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('table structure and schema information'). It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_list_tables (which lists tables) and mysql_query (which executes queries), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when to prefer mysql_describe_table over other tools like mysql_query for schema inspection or how it relates to mysql_list_tables. Without any usage context or exclusions, it scores a 2.

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