get_table_structure

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' is a reasonable signal that the operation only reads the table structure and is not destructive, which is the most important behavioral property here. However, the description doesn't state what happens on missing tables, invalid paths, or other failure cases.

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 filler or redundant content. It is compact and easy to parse, though it does not reach a 5 because it remains terse in terms of useful context.

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?

An output schema is present, so explaining the return shape is not necessary, and the tool itself is simple enough to call with two required parameters. Still, the definition lacks meaningful guidance for choosing this tool over its siblings and leaves db_path's semantics ambiguous, making the overall context adequate but not 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 0%, and the description adds no detail about what db_path should contain or what formats are accepted for table. The phrase 'specified table' only weakly restates the table parameter and does nothing to clarify db_path, so the description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the structure of a specified table'), which is readable and distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_tables and query_execution. It does not explicitly say the structure includes columns, types, or constraints, so it stops just short of maximum clarity.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_tables or query_execution. It does not mention discovering table names with list_tables first, nor does it clarify that query_execution should be used for data retrieval rather than schema inspection. Usage is only weakly implied by the stated purpose.

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