describe_table

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

The description indicates a safe read operation. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on potential limitations, permissions, or the exact content of the schema returned (e.g., columns, types).

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could specify what 'schema information' includes (e.g., columns, types) for better agent understanding.

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 100%; the parameter 'table_name' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get the schema information for a specific table' clearly specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables which only list table names.

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 implicitly indicates usage for retrieving schema of a specific table. While no explicit when-not-to-use is provided, sibling names provide context, making it clear that this tool is for detailed schema rather than listing.

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