describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Describe' implies a read-only operation, and 'by name' indicates a lookup-by-name behavior, which adds some value. However, it does not disclose potential errors for missing tables, the effect of having both optional parameters set, or any permission or performance characteristics. It partially misses the opportunity to clarify behavior beyond the obvious.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 has two ambiguous optional parameters and numerous sibling tools, the description is far too sparse to provide complete guidance. It does not explain when to choose this tool, how to handle the parameters, or what 'metadata' exactly includes. While an output schema exists and could cover return values, the overall context is insufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 should clarify the parameters. It says 'by name' but does not indicate which of the two parameters (table or table_name) should be used, nor the relationship between them. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaningful disambiguation, leaving uncertainty for the agent.

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 'Describe' with a clear resource 'a table' and specifies the scope 'columns and metadata'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_table_columns and list_table_indexes, which focus on individual structures. The phrase 'by name' further clarifies that the input is a table name.

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 like list_table_columns or describe_integration_tables. It lacks any mention of when to prefer this tool, when not to, or how it relates to sibling tools in a workflow. The only implication is that it is used for table schema lookup, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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