bw_table_describe

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call merges several metadata aspects and that outputPath produces a full snapshot with a summary envelope. However, it does not describe the default inline return shape or whether the default response is paginated/truncated, which is relevant given the outputPath hint.

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 tool description is two crisp sentences that front-load the purpose and then give the key usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, and the longer outputPath detail is appropriately placed in the schema rather than the main description.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns conceptually and gives a strategy for obtaining the full snapshot. The main gap is the missing default response format, but the agent can still invoke the tool correctly with just the required table parameter.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters fully. The main description adds little beyond the schema; even the rich outputPath explanation lives inside the schema property description. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Describe a DDIC table in one call'. It also enumerates the exact scope of the result—metadata, info, fields, and data-preview metadata—which separates it from data-retrieval siblings like bw_table_get_data or bw_table_query_sql.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to describe a DDIC table, and 'Prefer outputPath when you need the full snapshot' is a concrete conditional usage guideline. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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