archery_describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states that the tool executes 'SHOW CREATE TABLE', implying it is a read operation, but it does not disclose whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format is (though an output schema exists). As a database introspection tool, it could benefit from clarifying if it only reads metadata or might trigger side effects in some databases.

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 (one Chinese sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word adds value. However, it could be slightly improved by being more explicit about the parameters or usage, but for its brevity, it is efficient.

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 tool complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. The output schema exists and may fill some gaps, but the lack of parameter explanations and usage context makes it hard for an AI agent to use correctly. For example, the agent might not know whether 'db' or 'instance' is required or how they interact with 'site'.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description only mentions the 'table' parameter implicitly via the SQL command, but does not explain the other three parameters ('db', 'site', 'instance'). For example, 'db' and 'instance' are nullable with defaults, but the description does not clarify their role or whether 'site' affects which database environment is queried. This leaves the agent guessing about how to properly invoke the tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取', meaning 'get') and resource ('表结构', meaning 'table structure') with an explicit SQL command ('SHOW CREATE TABLE'). This clearly states the tool retrieves the CREATE TABLE statement for a given table. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'archery_list_columns', which also deals with table structure, so it loses a point for lacking differentiation.

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. The sibling tools include 'archery_query' (a general query tool) and 'archery_list_columns' (lists columns), but the description does not explain when a user should choose 'archery_describe_table' over them. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for use.

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