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. While it mentions that the tool returns 'statistical summary and column info', it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, or how the data is formatted. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' are structured but slightly verbose for such a simple tool. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the parameter meaning, but without annotations, it lacks behavioral context like safety or performance considerations, making it only adequate for a simple read operation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal parameter semantics by specifying that 'name' is the 'Table name'. This provides basic context beyond the schema, but it doesn't elaborate on format constraints, examples, or how the name should be specified (e.g., case sensitivity, database context).

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed statistics for a table'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'show_table', which might also provide table information but with different scopes or formats.

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. With siblings like 'list_tables', 'show_table', and 'query_table' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others for accessing table details.

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