inspect_table_schema_tool

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

The description discloses the fallback strategy (real database first, then migration/local SQL), which is key behavioral information. Without annotations, this fills a gap. However, it does not mention any side effects or required permissions.

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 concise sentence, but it is sparse. It could be expanded to include parameter info without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and simple parameters, the description omits crucial details like parameter descriptions, usage context, and return value semantics. The fallback behavior is the only substantial information.

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 the description provides no information about the two parameters (table_name and workspace_root). An agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions, leading to confusion about workspace_root's purpose.

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, combined with the tool name, clearly indicates the tool inspects table schema. It adds the fallback behavior (real DB, then migration/local SQL), which distinguishes it from generic schema tools. However, it does not explicitly state the primary purpose of returning the schema.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tools are all code-generation related, but the description does not clarify the specific use case or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer its usage.

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