describe_table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey the read-only nature of '查看' and that output covers columns, types, defaults, and comments, plus the database scope. It omits any mention of permissions, prerequisites, or behavior when the table does not exist — gaps for a zero-annotation tool, but the operation is inherently low-risk.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and states the returned fields immediately. The trailing 'Args:' block largely restates the single schema property, adding little, but the total length is small and not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return values, and it still names the key fields it exposes. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; the missing piece is guidance on precedence relative to the sibling query/list tools.

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, and it does add meaning beyond the bare 'Table Name' title by stating the parameter is a table name accessible within Archery, implying it should come from the accessible-table namespace. It stops short of specifying qualification (schema.table) or format constraints.

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 and resource ('查看...指定表的字段、类型、默认值和注释' — view a specified table's columns, types, defaults, and comments) and scopes it to 'the currently configured target database'. This clearly separates it from list_tables, which enumerates tables rather than describing one, though the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_tables, query, sql_check, or query_history. The agent must infer that this is a schema-inspection step, but nothing in the text confirms that or rules out alternatives.

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