show_create_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (a CREATE TABLE statement) and scope (schema, engine, settings), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any permissions or error behavior. The verb 'Return' implies a safe read, but additional context like 'does not modify the table' would improve clarity.

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, concise sentence that delivers the essential information with no filler. The parenthetical adds relevant detail without bloating. It is front-loaded and every word 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description tells what it returns but does not specify the exact return format (e.g., a raw SQL string) or any error cases. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail about the return value would improve completeness. Currently, it is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'for a table' but does not explain the 'database' or 'table' parameters beyond their names. No syntax, formats, or relationship between parameters is added. Since the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema property names, a low score is warranted.

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's purpose: 'Return the CREATE TABLE statement for a table.' It specifies the exact resource (table) and the output (the statement), and the parenthetical '(schema, engine, settings)' adds specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like describe_table, which might return metadata, and query or sample_rows, which return data.

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: when you need the DDL for a table. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over describe_table or provide any exclusions. No explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' guidance is given, so it stops at implied usage.

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