list_table_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic operation and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only status, required permissions, pagination, or edge cases.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though it could have added a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 no parameter documentation, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify which parameter to use or what 'table' vs 'table_name' refers to, making it insufficient for reliable tool 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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'table' and 'table_name'. Both are optional with default null, leaving the agent confused about how to specify the table or what distinguishes the two parameters.

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 lists columns on a table, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'columns defined on a table'. It also notes that integration tables are included, which helps distinguish it from related tools like list_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?

The description implies usage when you need column definitions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over list_table_indexes or describe_table, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'including integration tables' offers some context but no clear guidance.

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