sn_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states a read operation (fetching schema) but omits details on safety, authorization, error conditions, or response size. The behavioral transparency is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (15 words), which is good for clarity, but it is not front-loaded with critical details. It is a single sentence that could benefit from more structure, especially given the lack of parameter explanations. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description should cover arguments and basic usage. It only describes the purpose, omitting parameter format, return value nature, or any usage constraints. The tool definition is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%. The description mentions 'given table' implying the 'table' parameter, but does not explain its format or role. The 'limit' parameter is completely undiscussed. The description adds negligible meaning beyond parameter names.

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 'Fetch' and specifies the target resource: field names, types, labels, and constraints from sys_dictionary for a given table. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on widgets, logs, or other metadata.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description does not mention preconditions, examples, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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