get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys read-only intent through 'Return' and adds useful context about undocumented schemas, but it does not mention error cases, authentication, or side effects. The core behavior is transparent enough for a schema lookup, but not richly detailed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the action and input source, the second provides usage guidance and context. Every clause earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's low complexity, one required parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where the input comes from, when to use it, and why it may be needed. No critical missing information prevents correct invocation.

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?

The input schema only provides a string title for file_uri, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the parameter is an hf:// URI obtained from list_catalog and refers to a parquet file. It lacks an explicit example or format validation, but the single parameter's meaning is effectively conveyed.

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 the real column names and types for a parquet file.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the hf:// URI from list_catalog and being a schema-introspection step before run_sql.

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?

It explicitly says to use this before run_sql when unsure a field exists, and notes that plain court-judgment files lack documented schemas. It gives a concrete condition but does not detail exhaustive when-not-to-use scenarios or all alternative tools.

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