sqlquery_describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, side effects). For a DESCRIBE operation, it should explicitly state it is a read-only query.

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 to the point, with an argument list. It could be slightly more structured, but it efficiently conveys the basic purpose.

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?

Without annotations, output schema, or parameter details, the description falls short. It does not explain the return format (e.g., which columns or metadata) or when to use this tool over SQL query tools. The mention of 'DESC TABLE' hints at output but is insufficient.

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 only lists parameter names in Chinese without adding meaning beyond the property names. For example, 'schema_name' is marked optional with default empty, but no explanation of its usage or format is provided.

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 it retrieves table structure details using 'DESC TABLE', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sqlquery_execute or sqlquery_logs, which could cause confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about when to choose sqlquery_describe_table over siblings like sqlquery_execute or instance_table_lookup.

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