Describe Table

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

Annotations already disclose a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds engine-specific behavioral detail: columns for SQL, inferred fields for MongoDB, mapping for Elasticsearch, and type/TTL for Redis. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The colon-separated list packs four engine-specific behaviors into one compact, readable statement, and every clause earns its place.

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, the description must explain return values, and it does so for each supported engine. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions and the safety annotations, it is nearly complete, though it does not state prerequisites such as having an active connection or how errors for missing objects are surfaced.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that the `table` parameter can name a table, collection, index, or key, but it does not add new syntax or format details beyond 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 uses the verb 'Show' with a specific resource, 'the structure of a table', and enumerates what that means across SQL, MongoDB, Elasticsearch, and Redis. This is not a tautology and clearly identifies a metadata/introspection operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish itself.

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 on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_table_sample, get_table_indexes, or list_tables. While the purpose implies schema introspection, there are no when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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