get_database_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: no credentials are needed, which suggests a read-only, low-risk operation. However, it does not state explicitly that it is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior, performance implications, or what happens if the table does not exist. The disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the core purpose in ten words. Nothing is wasted.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description might be adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites, error cases, or how the output relates to the parameter. It also does not provide usage context, such as when this tool is preferred over reading schema from elsewhere. For a schema-retrieval tool, the absence of any limitation or format details makes it only minimally complete.

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 for explaining the parameter. The only parameter, table_name, is not mentioned in the description at all. The description says 'Return table columns and indexes' but does not clarify that the table_name parameter identifies which table to query. This leaves the agent to infer the mapping. The description adds no value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'table columns and indexes', which is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_job_status or validate_sql. It also adds 'without credentials', which clarifies the access requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it operates on a single table, though the required parameter table_name implies that. It is slightly less precise than the 'List ALL calls' example, but still strong.

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 does not mention any conditions for use, exclusions, or relationships to siblings such as execute_readonly_sql or validate_sql. The only context is 'without credentials', which implies a safe, low-privilege operation but does not explain why one would choose this over other schema-related tools. No alternatives are named.

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