describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full responsibility of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the output format (DDL) but omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the table does not exist, or any permission requirements. This incomplete disclosure leaves the agent without a clear safety profile.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get full structural details of a table as CREATE TABLE DDL') and then lists included elements. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description reasonably covers the core output (DDL components) but lacks information about error handling, return format (e.g., plain text string), or behavior on missing tables. Given no output schema, slightly more detail would be beneficial, though the current text is adequate for many use cases.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (table required, schema optional with default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as value formats, constraints, or usage examples. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 retrieves full structural details of a table in CREATE TABLE DDL format, listing specific components (columns, data types, constraints, foreign keys, indexes). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables, list_foreign_keys, and list_indexes which return only subsets of table information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not explain that list_foreign_keys or list_indexes are preferred when only those elements are needed, or that describe_table is the comprehensive option. The lack of contextual direction forces the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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