show_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only operation ('Show') and the parameter default behavior for catalog/schema. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or error conditions, the behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand the primary outcome.

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 appropriately brief and front-loads the purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is reasonable and does not waste words.

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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main function and parameter usage. It does not detail return format, but the output schema handles that. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, and the description's Args section largely duplicates the schema's descriptions. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the CREATE TABLE statement for a table.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table, which focuses on table metadata rather than DDL.

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 when to use the tool (when a CREATE TABLE statement is needed) and provides guidance on parameter formatting (preferring separate catalog/schema parameters). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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