hana_describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns column metadata (data type, length, nullable, primary key, comment) and does not indicate any side effects, destructive actions, or authorization needs. While the behavior is clear as a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe to call. Given the lack of annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate; it adds some context but not comprehensive 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and the second lists the return fields and provides an SQL equivalence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has an output schema (present but not shown), low complexity (2 parameters, required one), and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return values. It mentions that the tool works on tables (and the input schema says 'tabla o vista'), and specifies that the column comment is returned if it exists. It could be slightly improved by noting the default ordering of columns, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple describe tool.

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 input schema covers both parameters (table_name and schema) with descriptions. The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra information beyond the schema: it mentions the return of column comments ('si existe') which is not in the schema, but does not provide parameter syntax or format details. Overall, the description adds modest value over the schema, warranting a score of 3.

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: 'Describe la estructura de una tabla en SAP HANA Cloud.' It specifies the verb (describe) and resource (table structure), and lists what is returned (columns, data type, length, nullable, primary key, column comment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_list_tables (which lists table names) and hana_execute_query (general querying).

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 mentions 'Equivale a DESC table en SQL*Plus', which implies usage for obtaining table structure, similar to SQL*Plus. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hana_execute_query for similar informtion) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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