get_table_columns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return column metadata,' and adds useful context about supported platforms and the use of sys.columns. It doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or response details, but for a simple metadata retrieval this is minimally adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a short scope statement and a structured Args block. No unnecessary filler or redundancy is present.

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?

For a simple read-only metadata tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose, supported platforms, and parameter formats. It lacks explicit usage guidance and alternative routing, but overall it provides enough information for an agent to call the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does with an Args section that explains all three parameters. It clarifies that workspace and item accept names or GUIDs, and that qualified_name is a dot-separated table name with an example. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return column metadata for a SQL table via sys.columns.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and its scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_view_columns, but the 'SQL table' qualifier provides implicit differentiation.

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 notes compatibility with Fabric Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_view_columns would be the appropriate choice for views, nor any exclusion conditions.

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