get_table_details

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. It only says 'get runtime details/statistics' without explaining what those details include, whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), any error conditions, or what the response structure is. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the resource. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, achieving maximum conciseness without losing clarity.

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?

For a simple one-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It tells what the tool does but does not specify the nature of the 'runtime details/statistics' or the response format. Given the lack of an output schema, some additional detail about the return value would be helpful, so it falls short of being fully 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the accepted object types. No extra semantic value is contributed.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('runtime details/statistics of a specific table, materialized view, view or live view'). It differentiates from siblings like get_tables (which lists tables) and get_table_schema (which returns schema), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when runtime details/statistics are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. There is no guidance on choosing between this and get_table_schema or get_tables, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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