preflight_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds 'Snapshot-strict', indicating a point-in-time snapshot, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like response size or error conditions. With annotations present, the description adds some value but remains limited.

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, dense sentence that conveys a lot of information without verbosity. However, it lacks front-loading of key purpose (e.g., 'Returns preflight data') and could be restructured for faster scanning.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description successfully lists the major components returned. It does not mention error handling or optional items, but for a snapshot tool, the completeness is adequate.

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%, meaning no parameters are described in the description. The schema itself has 4 parameters with basic constraints (minLength), but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. For a tool with multiple parameters, this is insufficient compensation.

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 uses specific verbs ('Return') and identifies a clear resource ('full preflight surface for a table') with a detailed list of components (columns, primary key, indexes, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'db_table_schema' or 'table_neighborhood'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes what the tool returns without context for selection.

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