查看表结构

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the return content (fields and indexes) and the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, result limits, or whether indexes are nested or flattened, so it only modestly expands beyond the annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose, then lists the exact returned components and API mapping. Every clause adds value and there is zero redundancy, making it highly 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?

Given the low-complexity read-only operation, strong annotations, and schema that documents most parameters, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the return payload structure (fields with attributes and indexes) and the API endpoint. It lacks only minor context (e.g., whether response_format changes the structure), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 75% (three of four parameters have Chinese descriptions). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; for instance, it does not clarify the format of source_id or how response_format affects output. Since coverage is high, 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 what the tool does: '查看表结构' (view table structure) and enumerates the exact content: field list (type/nullable/key/default/comment) and indexes. It also names the specific API endpoint, making the operation unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables.

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 for inspecting table schema, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., list_tables for only table names) or mention any prerequisites. The API endpoint provides a minor cue, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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