describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'safe operation' and mentions the return type (dictionary with query results or error info). However, it does not specify the structure of the returned dictionary (e.g., column metadata), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

Very concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is somewhat complete: it covers purpose, safety, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks detail on the return value's contents (e.g., what 'query results' means for a describe operation).

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%, so description must add value. It provides brief descriptions for both parameters ('table: The table name', 'database: The database name'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types. Descriptions are terse but adequate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Describe a Databend table', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'show_tables' (lists tables) and 'execute_sql' (runs queries), making the tool's purpose clear.

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?

Notes it is a 'safe operation, not affected by MCP safe mode', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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