Get table partition info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by naming the system view (SYS.TABLE_PARTITIONS) and the specific returned fields, plus the empty-result behavior for unpartitioned tables. This goes beyond the annotations without over-explaining.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second covers an important edge case. No fluff or repetition.

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 read-only query with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it names the source view, lists the returned metadata fields, and handles the unpartitioned-table case. No output schema exists, but the listed fields give agents sufficient understanding of what to expect.

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 100%, with both table_name and schema_name adequately described in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: partition metadata from SYS.TABLE_PARTITIONS. It lists the exact metadata fields (type, level, record count, loaded state), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_get_table_stats or hana_describe_table.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when partition metadata is needed) and notes an important edge case: returns empty for unpartitioned tables. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond that edge case, falling short of a full 5.

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