describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a key behavioral trait: 'Unknown tag/field roles are returned as category=unknown instead of guessed.' This clarifies non-guessing behavior. However, it does not disclose other aspects like return format, error handling, or read-only safety, leaving some 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear usage directive. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It explains the purpose, a key behavior, and a usage scenario, which is decent. However, it does not describe the returned schema structure or error behavior, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent to fully rely on it.

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 fully documents both parameters (db, table). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the existing schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Describe table schema using InfluxDB metadata.' It distinguishes its behavior by noting unknown roles are returned as 'category=unknown' rather than guessed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool 'get_measurement_schema', so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before retrying SQL queries that fail on quoted wildcard or unknown-field selectors.' It gives a clear workflow instruction: 'expand matching fields explicitly and run one bounded query_sql.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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