archery_list_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list columns' but omits details like return format, authentication needs, read-only nature, or scope of column info (types, constraints).

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('获取') but lacks any structural elements like examples or notes.

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 4 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify parameter roles, output behavior, or when to prefer this over similar tools like 'archery_describe_table'.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameters like 'db', 'site', and 'instance' are not explained; the agent must infer their roles from the schema alone.

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 '获取表的字段列表' (get field list of table) clearly states the action (list columns) and the resource (table), which is specific and distinct from siblings like 'archery_query' or 'archery_describe_table'.

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 usage guidance is provided; the description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'archery_describe_table'), nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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