describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'describe', but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any side effects. For a simple metadata tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and lists specific objects (columns, PK, FKs, indexes).

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?

The tool has two simple parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., connection must be valid) and error conditions. It is minimally sufficient for correct invocation but could be more complete.

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 does not elaborate on the meaning, format, or allowed values of 'connection_name' or 'table_name'. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the description fails to add value beyond the schema, which is required given the low coverage.

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 tool's action: describe columns, primary key, foreign keys, and indexes of a table. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (which only lists table names) and query (for data retrieval).

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 implies usage for obtaining table metadata but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or any prerequisites (e.g., connection must exist). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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