get_table_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses multiple metadata tables and returns 'structured JSON summaries, recent activity, and health signals', which is informative. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, leaving ambiguity. Given the lack of annotations, a score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states purpose and output, and the second efficiently explains the parameter format. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 that there is an output schema (true), the description does not need to detail return values. The parameter explanation is sufficient. However, given the large number of sibling tools, a brief note on how this tool differs from alternatives (e.g., comprehensive vs. individual metadata queries) would enhance completeness. Nonetheless, it is largely complete.

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 only parameter 'table' has 0% description coverage in the schema. The description adds significant meaning by providing naming examples ('flights or iceberg.default.flights'), which clarifies the expected format beyond the bare schema. This compensates well for the missing schema description.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Assess Iceberg table health using metadata tables'. The verb 'assess' and resource 'table health' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like list_snapshots or describe_metadata_table by focusing on health assessment using multiple metadata tables.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Pass the table as name or catalog.schema.table' with examples. It implies when to use (to assess health) but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use. With 16 siblings, more explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over individual metadata queries would be beneficial.

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