get_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only, list-style behavior and the scope to the current Hive database, but it does not mention return format, potential limitations, or side effects. For such a simple zero-parameter read operation, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

A single-front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and target resource with no superfluous words. Every part of the description adds value.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema is provided, so the description only needs to specify what is listed and in what context. The single sentence fully covers that for a minimal introspection operation.

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 parameter count is 0, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The description accurately describes what the tool will produce, and no parameter-related information is required beyond the schema's empty object.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the exact resource ('table names'), and scopes it to the 'current Hive database.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool execute_query, which focuses on running queries rather than returning schema metadata.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious: use it when you need the list of table names in the current Hive database. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with execute_query or state when to prefer one over the other, leaving the routing decision somewhat implied.

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