get_object_details

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

The description only states it 'shows' information, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, performance implications, or behavior for missing objects. With annotations already declaring read-only, the description provides minimal added value.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the main purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits context about error handling, required permissions, or potential performance costs. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all three parameters (schema_name, object_name, object_type). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows detailed information about a database object, but it lacks specificity about what 'detailed information' entails, which could include properties, columns, or other metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_objects and list_schemas by focusing on details of a single object.

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 alternatives such as list_objects, explain_query, or analyze_db_health. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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