describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output content (column names, types, nullable, default values, primary key), indicating a read-only inspection behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no modification or any permission requirements, but for a describe operation this is minimally adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that entirely conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant 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?

The description is sufficient for a simple describe-table tool, mentioning the return fields. Though there is no output schema, the listed attributes cover the expected output. It omits details like error conditions, but given the simplicity and schema coverage of parameters, it is adequately complete.

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 schema descriptions for all three parameters (table, schema, database) provide full coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The description itself does not reference parameters, which is acceptable given the schema completeness.

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 a specific verb ('查看' = view) and resource ('表结构' = table structure), and explicitly lists the returned attributes (column names, types, nullable, default, primary key). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables, which lists table names.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of when to prefer describe_table over list_tables or execute_query, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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