Get Table Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that exact_row_count is optional and that statistics are returned by default, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential performance costs of exact_row_count, permission requirements, or error behavior. It adds some value but not the full transparency expected without annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and lists specific details. There is no fluff or repetition, and every word adds value.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what data is returned and the optional flag. The only minor gap is the lack of notes on the cost or implications of exact_row_count, but this is not critical for basic use given the output schema exists.

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. It explicitly explains that exact_row_count yields an exact count instead of statistics, which goes beyond the bare boolean type. table_name is self-evident from its name, so the description covers the key parameter semantics adequately.

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 'Retrieves' and the specific resource 'table details', listing the exact fields (owner, tablespace, optimizer statistics, optional row count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_table_schema (schema structure) and profile_table (data profiling). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, 'use this instead of get_table_schema when you need statistics' or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool's name and description, which is minimal.

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