describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get table structure' implies a read-only operation but does not specify what 'structure' includes (columns, types, constraints, indexes), nor any potential error behavior or access requirements. This is a significant gap for a schema-inspection tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient for the purpose, though it could include more behavioral detail without being overly verbose. The brevity is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too incomplete. It fails to explain what 'structure' entails or how the result relates to sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns detailed schema information, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed about expected output and capabilities.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (table and schema), including a default for schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain parameter formatting or relationships beyond what the schema already states.

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 table structure' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves schema information for a table. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like 'query' (data) and 'list_tables' (names only), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'describe_programmable_object'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., connect_db first), nor does it contrast with list_tables or describe_programmable_object. Users must infer usage from the name and description.

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