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 of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'gets' schema information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output returns (e.g., JSON, structured data), or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get schema information') and specifies the target ('for a specific table'). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about the returned schema information, but it meets the bare minimum for understanding the tool's purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (connectionId, includeIndexes, tableName). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get schema information for a specific table', which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schema information for a specific table'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tables' (which lists tables) and 'create_table' (which creates tables), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_connection_info' or 'get_database_stats' that also retrieve metadata.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to 'list_tables' (for table enumeration) or 'execute_query' (for custom schema queries), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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