get_table_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'schema information' without specifying what that includes (e.g., columns, types, constraints) or whether it is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that retrieves database metadata.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The structure with 'Args' is clear, but it could be more concise by removing the 'Args' header if not needed. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify what the output schema contains, which is important for an AI agent to interpret results. More detail would improve completeness.

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 no description (0% coverage), so the description adds value by explaining the 'table_name' parameter with an example. However, it could provide more detail on valid formats or restrictions beyond the example.

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 action ('Get schema information') and the resource ('a specific table'), making the purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_tables' which likely lists table names, while this tool retrieves schema details.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when to prefer this over 'execute_query' or 'get_tables', or under what conditions it should be used.

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