tableContext

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds context beyond annotations by specifying that output is 'compact root/nearby table metadata' with 'declared FK and optional observed join edges,' which conveys scope and non-exhaustiveness.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every clause earns its place by conveying scope, output content, and when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 read-only annotations, the output schema, and schema-covered parameters, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by noting default depth or the connection requirement, but those are already covered in the input schema.

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 71%, and most parameters (depth, connection, includeStats, includeIncoming, includeObserved) already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds high-level context like 'declared FK and optional observed join edges' that maps to includeObserved, but it does not explain individual parameters, so it mostly relies on the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Explore the relationship neighborhood of one known table' and names the concrete outputs ('declared FK and optional observed join edges'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from describeTable ('for only the table's own fields or structure'), so an agent can tell siblings apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives a clear selection rule: 'Use when nearby joins are needed' and states the alternative for a different need ('for only the table's own fields or structure, use describeTable'). This tells the agent both when to invoke this tool and when not to, with a named fallback.

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