get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is safe. The description lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with zero annotations.

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 that is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information.

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 no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is largely complete. The output schema presumably defines the return format, so the description does not need to explain it further. However, a slight addition about the tool's purpose (e.g., exploring available tables) could enhance completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4.

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 the list of table names in the configured Trino catalog and schema, using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of table names'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'describe_metadata_table' (which describes a specific table) and 'list_metadata_tables' (which may list tables in a different scope).

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 description implies usage when one needs the list of table names in the configured catalog/schema, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for table details, use 'describe_metadata_table'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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