inspect_table_schema_tool

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

The description adds the fallback strategy (real DB > migration SQL > local structure SQL), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool requires authentication, has side effects, or is read-only. With no annotations, the burden is higher, but the description partially compensates.

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, which is concise, but it lacks structure and does not front-load key information. It would benefit from a clearer separation of purpose and behavior.

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 has an output schema, return values need not be detailed, but the description omits crucial context such as error handling, permissions, and the exact meaning of the fallback. The 0% schema coverage leaves parameters undocumented, making the overall description incomplete.

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?

No parameter descriptions are provided in the schema (coverage 0%). The description does not explain 'table_name' or 'workspace_root', their formats, or semantics. For a 2-parameter tool, this is a significant gap.

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 states it parses fields from real database with fallback, implying the tool inspects table schema. However, it lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'inspect', and does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'inspect_codegen_context_tool'. Purpose is somewhat clear but could be more precise.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Describes fallback behavior but does not provide context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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