describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. 'Show' indicates a read-only inspection, and the default-database note adds useful behavior when the parameter is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, what happens on a missing table, or any permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a minimal Args section. There is no filler; every line adds information about the operation or its parameters.

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 two-parameter introspection tool with an output schema available, the description covers the action and all argument semantics, including the database fallback. It lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity and the output schema's role.

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 compensates by documenting both parameters. It adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that omitting database falls back to the connection's configured database, which is not inferable from the schema's null default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show column definitions for a table.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_tables (which lists tables) and run_sql (which executes arbitrary SQL), even though no sibling is named.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_sql or list_tables. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Show,' and there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for broader schema exploration.

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