get_object_details

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The term 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only operation, implying no destructive side effects. However, it does not detail any specific behavioral aspects like permission requirements, limits on object types (though the schema includes an 'object_type' parameter with allowed values), or whether the output is always returned or might be empty.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 that the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool shows but does not describe the format of the output (e.g., whether it returns a list, a table, or text), nor does it provide examples or context about typical usage. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only lists the information returned (columns, constraints, etc.). Thus, it meets the baseline but provides no extra clarification for parameter usage.

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 function: 'Show columns, constraints, indexes, and comments for a database object'. It specifies the verb ('Show') and the resource ('database object'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_relation_details', though the specific list of shown elements provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_objects', 'get_relation_details', or 'search_catalog'. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over others, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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