get_table_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what it does but not whether it's read-only, permission requirements, side effects, or response format. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but explicit confirmation is missing.

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, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail. It could be expanded with minimal extra text to cover usage and parameters.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and many siblings. The description does not explain the return value or differentiate from similar metadata tools. It is incomplete for an AI agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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%, yet the description does not mention parameters at all. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which ironically contains basic descriptions like 'Table ID'. The tool description should clarify the purpose of the 'include_hidden_fields' parameter and why it matters.

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 returns table metadata including fields. It distinguishes itself from likely related tools like 'get_table' (which may return the table object) and 'get_table_data' (which returns data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other metadata tools like 'get_table_foreign_keys' or 'get_table_related'.

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 vs. alternatives. With many sibling tools for table-related operations, the description should indicate the specific use case (e.g., retrieving field-level metadata) and when not to use it (e.g., for table data or foreign keys).

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