jazz_describe_table

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns a schema descriptor plus magic columns, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., nonexistent table) or any additional operational constraints. This is consistent with annotations and provides some context, but not beyond basic expectations.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes to understanding—the qualifiers 'official', 'WASM', 'query-time magic columns' are all informative.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and an annotation declaring read-only, the description provides adequate high-level context: it states the return type (schema descriptor) and the additional magic columns. However, it omits any detail about the output structure or potential errors, which could be helpful but is not essential for a simple metadata tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify the only parameter. It does so by saying 'for one table', indicating that the 'table' parameter is the table identifier. No further format or restriction details are given, but minimal ambiguity remains given the single parameter.

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 a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'the official Jazz WASM schema descriptor for one table'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jazz_list_tables (lists tables) and jazz_query (queries data). The mention of 'magic columns' adds further specificity.

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 its usage—when you need the schema descriptor for a specific table—but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like jazz_list_tables or jazz_query. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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