Show CREATE TABLE Statement

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context about the output (indexes, constraints, engine settings) and the default database fallback from environment variable, which is beyond the 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 concise with three sentences and a structured args list. It front-loads the purpose. Minor room for improvement in formatting (e.g., using bullet points for args in the prose).

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, the description adequately covers the return value (complete SQL). For a simple read-only tool with two parameters, it is complete enough for an agent to understand its use. Missing error handling details is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats the parameter info but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The env var fallback is mentioned in both places.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets the full CREATE TABLE DDL statement, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool mysql_describe_table, which also provides table structure but focuses on column details rather than full DDL.

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 the tool is for retrieving DDL statements but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mysql_describe_table or when to avoid it. Usage context is only implied.

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