describe_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return value but does not mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. The minimal description lacks transparency about non-obvious behaviors like required privileges or potential errors.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose: 'Return column names and types for a table so the agent can write SQL.' This is the ideal length for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., list of objects with 'name' and 'type') and does not mention that the table must exist. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'table' parameter (e.g., expected format, case sensitivity, whether full path is needed). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 returns column names and types for a table, with the explicit purpose of enabling SQL writing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_datasets (listing tables) and query_sql (executing queries) by focusing on schema introspection.

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 writing SQL but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings (e.g., 'Use before writing queries' or 'Do not use for listing tables'). No exclusions or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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