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. It discloses that the operation is read-only and details the return structure (JSON with specific keys). It does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or side effects, but for a read-only introspection tool these are minor. The description adds value by describing what information is returned, beyond what annotations would provide.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then enumerates the exact components and return keys. Every phrase adds information—no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive, structuring the behavior clearly.

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 there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return keys ('table', 'columns', 'foreign_keys', 'row_count', 'sql') and details column attributes. This fully equips an agent to interpret the result. It also covers the read-only nature and the scope (schema description). For a single-parameter introspection tool, nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single parameter, with the schema saying 'Name of the table to describe.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond that—it doesn't explain how to obtain valid table names (e.g., via list_tables) or any format constraints. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description's contribution is minimal, matching the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('a table') with clear detail on what is covered: columns with type/notnull/default/PK, foreign keys, row count, and the CREATE statement. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_tables (which presumably lists table names) and query_database (which executes queries). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 implicitly defines when to use it: when you need schema metadata for a specific table. It states it is 'Read-only', which implies it is safe for inspection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_tables or query_database, nor mention any exclusions (e.g., when to avoid it). Since the usage context is clear but alternatives are not named, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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