get_table_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get schema information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that no data is modified, require permissions, or note performance implications. It's a safe read operation but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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, direct sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool and gets straight to the point.

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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description is too minimal. It doesn't specify what schema information includes (e.g., columns, types, constraints) or that includeIndexes defaults to true. It also doesn't mention that a valid connectionId is required. Given sibling tools like compare_schemas, more context about return structure and prerequisites would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. The parameters are straightforward and well-documented in the 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'schema information for a specific table', which distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables (which lists all tables) and get_connection_info. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or scope nuances beyond 'specific table', so there's slight room for differentiation but it's clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'use when you need the structure of one table' or contrast with list_tables or compare_schemas. The description offers no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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