get_create_table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about what happens for a nonexistent or inaccessible table, whether the DDL includes indexes/constraints/foreign keys, or whether it reflects the live schema versus an original definition. For a schema-introspection tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The trailing Args block duplicates the input schema and is dead weight, though it costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained. For a single-parameter introspection tool the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits error behavior and the scope of the returned DDL, which matters when an agent is choosing between this and describe_table.

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 must compensate, and the Args block ('table_name: Name of the table') merely restates the parameter name. It adds no meaning about qualification (schema-prefixed names), case sensitivity, or accepted formats. That is a tautology rather than semantic guidance.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving the CREATE TABLE statement of a given table. That is a concrete artifact, not a vague 'get info'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby describe_table or get_table_indexes siblings, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of describe_table, get_table_indexes, or query. The agent must infer that this returns literal DDL rather than a structured column listing. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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