describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only introspection operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, error handling for missing tables, or schema resolution behavior. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and the specific output fields. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or vague content.

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?

For a simple read-only metadata tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete for invocation: the agent knows what the tool returns and can infer the required table parameter. It lacks guidance on optional schema handling and sibling-tool differentiation, but those are not blockers for a correct basic call.

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 0%, and the description only says 'for a table,' giving partial meaning to the table parameter. It does not explain the optional schema parameter or its default value. The parameter names are self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 begins with 'Show columns, types, nullability and defaults for a table,' which names a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like list_tables or list_indexes by describing exactly what kind of metadata it returns.

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 such as list_tables, list_indexes, or table_stats. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or workflow hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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