describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does describe the contents of the return (columns, data types, constraints, etc.), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any limitations or error behavior. The 'Get' verb implies a safe read, but more transparency would be expected.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get detailed schema breakdown') and lists the specific items covered. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the return value by enumerating the schema components. It could benefit from an example or note on error handling for non-existent tables, but for its complexity, it is largely 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('table' and 'schema'). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves, only restates that it works for a 'specific table or view', which echoes the schema. Thus baseline 3 applies.

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 provides a 'detailed schema breakdown' for 'a specific table or view', listing the exact contents (columns, types, constraints, keys, indexes). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists tables) or execute_query (which runs queries).

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 one needs schema details for a specific table/view, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools are present, but the description offers no direct comparison, so the usage context is only implied.

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