Get Table Schema

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns a compact markdown table with specified fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., nonexistent table), whether the result is ordered, or any access requirements. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieves the schema') and then details the output fields. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells what is returned and covers both tables and views. The only minor gap is not addressing error behavior or naming conventions, but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the single parameter 'table_name', and the description does not compensate. It does not specify whether the name should be fully qualified, case-sensitive, or how to reference views versus tables. With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and fails to add any parameter-level meaning.

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 retrieves the schema of a table or view, and specifies the exact components returned (column name, data type, length, nullability, primary key). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like get_table_details (which likely covers more than schema) and list_tables (which lists tables). The markdown format is an extra clarifying detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_table_details or execute_query. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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