Describe table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying safety. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the table doesn't exist) or whether any side effects occur. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only intent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the output attributes without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what fields are returned. It lacks details like error handling or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete. The mention of returned columns compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'table' parameter with a clear description and example ('Table name, e.g. "snippets"'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already includes, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with the resource 'columns for a table', listing the exact attributes returned (name, type, nullable, default). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists tables) and count_rows (which counts rows).

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 purpose is implicitly clear from the description: use this tool to inspect a table's schema. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like run_query or list_tables, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., table existence or permission requirements).

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