explore_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It thoroughly enumerates all output categories (table metadata, fields, business rules, client scripts, ACLs, relationships, hierarchy, counts), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's read-only exploratory nature.

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 well-structured with a bold lead sentence, bulleted list of returns, and a concluding usage note. It is appropriately detailed for a schema discovery tool, though the bullet list could be slightly more compact.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides exhaustive context about what the tool returns and when to use it. An agent receiving this description would have complete understanding of the tool's function and outputs.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds example values for 'table' but otherwise does not enrich parameter meanings beyond the schema. Acceptable but not exceptional.

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 'Full schema discovery for a ServiceNow table' and lists specific metadata returned. It distinguishes from siblings like discover_schema or find_table by focusing on comprehensive context, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this before writing a BR or Client Script to understand the full context.' This provides a clear use case, though it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for partial discovery.

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