fb_inspect_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the depth and shape of what is read and the session/database precondition, but never states that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor any permission requirement. That leaves a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and purpose, then a tight bullet list of inspected artifacts plus a one-line operational caveat. Efficient and scannable, with no filler; the bullets could have been slightly condensed but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey the return payload, and it does: columns/types, keys, and index statistics. What an agent needs in order to call it correctly is mostly present; only the read-only nature and parameter contract remain implicit.

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 schema offers no parameter meaning. The description partially compensates by implying db_alias selects among project databases and that the session-active database acts as the default, but it never explains the db_alias/table_name contract directly. With only two self-evident-by-name parameters this is borderline adequate.

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?

States a specific verb (inspects) and resource (table structure) and then enumerates exactly what it returns: columns with exact types/domains/nullability, PK/FK, and indexes with ordering and real selectivity. This clearly separates it from siblings like fb_list_tables, which only enumerate names.

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?

Gives an explicit situational rule: if multiple databases exist and none is active in the session, ask the user before proceeding. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., fb_list_tables for names only) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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