get-table-config

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 only states 'Get table configuration', offering no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but based solely on structure and brevity, it earns full marks for being succinct.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what table configuration includes, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('tableName' and 'tableType') is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'tableName' refers to, what 'tableType' might be, or how they affect the configuration retrieval. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get table configuration' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get-table-config' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'table configuration', but provides no additional detail about what table configuration entails or distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'table-details' or 'tableconfig-schema-details'.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to tables and configurations (e.g., 'table-details', 'tableconfig-schema-details', 'list-tables'), there is no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what distinguishes it from other options.

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