superset_database_table_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses exactly what metadata is returned (columns, types, indexes, primary keys) and notes the default schema behavior, giving the agent a concrete picture of the operation. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but the read-only nature is evident from 'Get' and the described outputs.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the purpose, the second sentence gives the use case, and the Args list is minimal and scannable. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides all essential context for correct invocation: what the tool does, when to use it, and what each parameter means. The schema default behavior is also clarified.

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?

Although the structured schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section explains each parameter in plain language, including database_id, table_name, and schema_name. It adds important context like 'If not specified, uses the default schema', fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('table metadata'), explicitly listing columns, data types, indexes, and primary keys. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_database_tables (listing tables) or superset_database_select_star (previewing rows).

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 line 'Useful for understanding table structure before writing SQL queries' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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