trace_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Description adds 'Snapshot-strict' and reveals internal mechanisms (getSchemaTableSnapshot, listFunctionTableRefs, FTS, ast-grep), giving insight into its behavior beyond 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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the first sentence is a dense list of components, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers scope and internal methods but lacks prerequisites, error conditions, or output format details. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention projectId, projectRef, or schema, leaving their purpose unclear. Only 'table' is implied by the context.

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 the verb 'Trace' on resource 'table' and lists specific components (columns, indexes, foreign keys, RLS, triggers, RPC edges, app-code call sites). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like trace_edge, trace_rpc, etc., by focusing on a single table end-to-end.

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 explains what the tool does comprehensively but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings like 'table_neighborhood' or 'trace_edge'. No conditions or alternatives mentioned.

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