describe_table

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already marks this as a safe read operation, and the description complements it by detailing the exact output structure (column name, type, length, etc.). While it doesn't discuss error cases or authorization, the read-only nature is transparent and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function and output, with no wasted words or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only describe operation with no output schema and a well-understood purpose, the description is complete and self-sufficient. The listed attributes fully define the return value, making the tool adequate for its intended use even without additional context.

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%, with both 'table' and 'schema' parameters clearly described inline. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level insight beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: '查看表结构' (view table structure) and enumerates the exact attributes returned (column name, data type, length, nullable, default value, primary key). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables and list_indexes, and it is not a tautology.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as list_tables or list_views. There is no mention of when not to use it or any preconditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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