Inspect Table Schema

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, and '只读' merely repeats it. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context: the real database must recognize the target table, and local SQL is diagnostic-only. It still omits what happens on failure or whether results are cached, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action (read-only single-table inspection) before the constraints. It is efficient, though the dense punctuation makes the two clauses blur together slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 0% parameter coverage the description should compensate for undocumented inputs — it does not explain workspace_root at all. For a two-parameter tool, this leaves a material gap.

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 neither of the two parameters is documented. The description only hints at 'single table' (implying table_name) but says nothing about workspace_root, its default null, or path resolution — leaving the uncovered schema to carry meaning the description never supplies.

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 names a specific verb+resource in '只读检查单表字段' (read-only inspection of a single table's fields), which clearly separates it from project/workspace-level siblings like inspect_project_path or validate_workspace_projects. It is clear but does not explicitly route to any alternative tool.

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?

It implies usage context via '真实数据库必须识别到目标表，本地 SQL 仅作诊断参考' — i.e. the tool expects a real, resolvable database and treats local SQL as diagnostic only. However, it never states when to choose this over resolve_database_config or inspect_codegen_context, so the guidance is only implied.

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