get_table_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description clearly indicates this is a read operation (returns metadata) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved. It does not mention any caveats like authorization requirements, performance implications on large databases, or whether the schema parameter defaults affect which objects are covered, but as a metadata-read tool the transparency is acceptable.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that enumerates the returned metadata in a natural list. No filler or redundancy. Slightly terse but appropriately sized for a schema-inspection 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?

For a metadata-inspection tool with 2 simple params and no output schema, the description covers the return contents well but leaves out parameter semantics (what format 'table' expects, what 'schema' means). No annotations exist to cover safety or behavior. The tool is straightforward enough that this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'de una tabla' which maps to the 'table' parameter, but neither the 'table' nor 'schema' parameters are described at all. It's unclear if 'schema' is a database schema qualifier (e.g., dbo) which the default suggests, and whether the table param expects a bare name or fully qualified name. The description adds minimal value over the schema's raw parameter names.

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 verb ('Devuelve' - returns) and resource (table definition) plus enumerates the specific elements returned: columns, types, nullability, primary key, foreign keys, and indexes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables (which lists tables) and get_object_definition (which is broader/generic). The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting with get_object_definition or other siblings.

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 implies usage for retrieving table schema metadata but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. Given the sibling tools include get_object_definition (which might overlap or differ in scope) and run_select_query, some guidance on when this vs get_object_definition is appropriate would strengthen it. However, the enumerated return content makes the use case reasonably clear by implication.

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