get_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but omits details on idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. A 2 is appropriate given the absence of crucial behavioral clarity.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the brevity results in insufficient information for an agent. A score of 3 reflects that it is minimally adequate but not well-structured for completeness.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain what 'table' means in this context (definition vs. data), how it differs from similar tools, or what the response contains. The completeness is poor for a tool with many siblings.

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 indicated as 0% (though the schema actually has a description for 'id'). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. The nested 'input' object and required 'id' parameter are not elaborated upon, leaving the agent without additional context on the parameter's role.

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 'Get' and resource 'single table by ID from Metabase'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_table_data, get_table_metadata, and list_all_tables by focusing on a single table retrieval. However, it does not specify whether it returns the table definition or its data, which could cause ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_table_data, get_table_metadata, or list_all_tables. The description lacks any context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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