sql_inspect_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists exactly what information is returned (columns, keys, indexes, row count), which is good transparency about this read operation. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but the content listing strongly implies inspection rather than mutation. It's a strong disclosure for an inspection tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately details the complete output contents. Zero wasted words, zero filler. Every element in the sentence earns its place.

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 has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description compensates effectively by enumerating all return contents (columns, keys, indexes, row count), which addresses the most important unknown for the agent. It's reasonably complete for a simple inspection tool, though it could mention whether there's a limit on row count performance or schema-level vs database-level details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'table' parameter with a clear example ('Orders' or 'dbo.Orders'). The description explains what is done with that table parameter (shows details about it). This meets the baseline for full-coverage schemas; there's minimal additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Show full details') and resource ('about a table'), enumerating the specific information returned: columns with types/nullability/defaults, primary keys, foreign keys, indexes, and row count. This distinguishes it from siblings like sql_count_and_sample and sql_list_tables, which focus on narrower concerns.

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 when to use this tool (when you need table schema/metadata), which differentiates it from the write/query siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The context is clear but implicit rather than explicit.

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