get_view_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not describe what 'column information' entails, what fields are returned, or any potential limitations (e.g., only returns columns defined in the view, not underlying tables). The description is too minimal to be transparent.

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 very short (6 words), which is concise but arguably too brief. It contains no waste, yet it misses the opportunity to provide essential context. It is not structured with a clear front-loading of key information because it lacks substance.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., column names, types, nullable flags). It does not. The tool is part of a suite of metadata tools, and this description is incomplete compared to potential more detailed siblings. The absence of behavioral details makes it insufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic enrichment is provided.

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 states 'Get column information for a view' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_table_columns' or specify what kind of column information (e.g., names, types, constraints). The purpose is clear but not precise enough to avoid confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar 'get_*' tools (e.g., get_table_columns, get_view_definition) but the description offers no context to help the agent select the appropriate one.

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