get_table_ddl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the DDL is reconstructed from the catalog and includes constraints/indexes, which is helpful. However, it does not mention if the operation is read-only, any permissions needed, or potential performance implications, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentence with a parenthetical that adds context. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every part is informative with no filler.

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 could specify the return format (e.g., a string of SQL). It explains the reconstruction approach and includes constraints/indexes, but lacks details on output structure, error conditions, or example usage, leaving the agent somewhat uncertain about what to expect.

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% and parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the reconstructed CREATE TABLE DDL, including constraints and indexes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_table or get_indexes by focusing on DDL reconstruction, and the parenthetical context about PostgreSQL lacking SHOW CREATE TABLE adds specificity.

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 use when DDL is needed, and notes it's the closest supported reconstruction due to PostgreSQL limitations. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this vs alternatives like describe_table or get_indexes, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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