get_table_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation (get) and adds valuable context about the comment's authoritativeness. There are no contradictory statements, and the simple nature of the tool means no further negative traits need disclosure.

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 with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately adds the key semantic nuance. Every part 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool returns (authoritative comment) and provides context for its use. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 should compensate for parameter meaning. Parameter names (schema_name and table_name) are self-explanatory, and the description's mention of 'table' implicitly relates to the table_name parameter. However, no additional semantic detail is provided beyond the schema.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the authoritative comment for a table'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_column_comment or list_tables by emphasizing that the comment defines actual data content and should be trusted over the table name.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating to trust the comment over the table name, suggesting use when reliable data content understanding is needed. It does not explicitly list when not to use or contrast with specific alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the differentiation apparent.

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