get_schema

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

The verb '读取' indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful since siblings include upsert_rows. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose return format, permissions, or potential errors, so transparency is only partial.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly under-specified, which is more a completeness issue than a structure problem.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves the agent without enough context about how to supply library/table values or what the returned schema will look like. Sibling names hint at a workflow, but the description itself does not establish it.

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%: the input schema only gives parameter names and types. The description mentions '表字段' (table fields) but leaves 'library' unexplained, and provides no value formats or how to obtain valid inputs, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 '读取表字段 schema' clearly states a read operation on a table's field schema, with a specific resource and scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like query (data retrieval) and list_tables (table enumeration), though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_tables or query, and no exclusions or prerequisite steps are mentioned. The intended workflow (first list libraries/tables, then fetch schema) is only inferable from sibling names, not stated.

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