get_table_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'full schema definition (DDL)' hints at the return content, but no mention is made of error handling, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and the specific resource type, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the purpose and the input, and implies the return format (DDL). However, it could explicitly state that it is read-only or describe the response structure, but given the simplicity, it is sufficient.

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 schema description for table_name is 100% coverage, clearly defining the parameter as the name of the table, materialized view, view, or live view. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full schema definition (DDL)' for a specific table, materialized view, view, or live view. It is specific about the output (DDL) and the accepted object types, distinguishing it from siblings like get_tables (listing tables) and get_table_details (likely other metadata).

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 such as get_tables or get_table_details. The description only states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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