describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the table doesn't exist, whether it returns metadata in a structured format, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying what is retrieved ('table structure') and what details are included ('columns, data types, and constraints'). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves metadata. It doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structured JSON, plain text), what happens on errors, or whether the output includes additional details like column defaults or foreign keys. For a metadata retrieval tool with rich sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('table_name' and 'schema') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format requirements for table names or default behavior for schema searches). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('table structure') with specific details about what information is included ('columns, data types, and constraints'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tables' (which would list names only) and 'get_table_constraints' (which would focus only on constraints). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'get_table_indexes' or 'execute_query' for structure queries.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is preferred over 'get_table_constraints' (for just constraints) or 'execute_query' (for custom SQL queries about table structure). There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or performance considerations.

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