get-table-info

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 states that it 'gets detailed information' without specifying what that includes (e.g., schema, row count, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if the table doesn't exist), or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying the type of information (e.g., metadata) to improve clarity immediately.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, which is crucial since there's no output schema to define the return values. For a tool that likely returns structured data (e.g., table schema, statistics), this gap makes it inadequate for an agent to understand the full context of use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'table_name' documented as 'Tablo adı' (Table name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Belirli bir tablo hakkında detaylı bilgi al' (Get detailed information about a specific table) states a clear verb ('al' - get) and resource ('tablo' - table), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'geometry-info' or 'raster-info' that might provide similar metadata for other resource types. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., connection to a database), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'analyze-database' or 'smart-query'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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