get_table_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only ('Get') and delimits the scope by listing four constraint types, implicitly excluding foreign keys. However, it does not disclose output format, ordering, permissions, or behavior with empty results.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, stating the action and the key constraint types.

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 is a simple metadata-read operation with fully documented parameters. The description covers what is returned (four constraint types) and is sufficient for the low complexity, though no output schema exists and return shape is not described.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains table, schema, and database. The description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('all constraints on a table'), explicitly enumerates constraint types (PRIMARY KEY, UNIQUE, CHECK, DEFAULT), and naturally differentiates from sibling tools like get_foreign_keys and get_table_indexes.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_foreign_keys or describe_table. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it, nor does it mention any exclusions like 'for foreign keys, use get_foreign_keys'.

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