clay_get_table_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it retrieves schema, but does not disclose read-only nature, error behavior for invalid tableId, or authentication requirements. For a simple read operation, more transparency about safety is expected.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the purpose with zero wasted words. It is highly concise and structured appropriately.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It would benefit from mentioning the return format, but given low complexity, it adequately informs the agent without significant gaps.

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% coverage for the single parameter 'tableId' with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for a well-documented parameter but does not exceed 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the schema (columns and types) for a specific Clay table. The verb 'Get' and resource 'schema' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like clay_list_tables (lists tables) and clay_query_table (queries data).

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 implies usage when needing a table's schema, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like clay_list_tables, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It is adequate but lacks differentiation.

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