injector_inspect_table

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

Behavioral transparency is moderate: the description discloses the connection method and environment variable, but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor what happens on errors (e.g., table not found, connection failure). No annotations are present to supplement this.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then providing necessary connection detail. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core functionality and connection requirements. It could mention what the inspection output contains, but the lack of output schema means this is not strictly necessary for basic understanding.

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 table_name well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the parameter, only providing context about the connection method (not a parameter). Thus baseline 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?

Description clearly states it 'Inspects the live database schema of a specific table', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like injector_blast_radius or injector_diagram.

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?

Description mentions the required environment variable and connection format, giving usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the DSN.

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