get_table_desc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for table structures and supports multi-table queries, but doesn't describe what 'table structures' include (e.g., field names, types, constraints), how results are formatted, whether it's read-only, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.

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, efficient sentence in both Chinese and English that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a key feature (multi-table support), making it appropriately sized and zero-waste.

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 complexity of database operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'table structures' entail, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool with one parameter but significant implied functionality, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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, with the parameter 'text' documented as '要搜索的表名' (table names to search). The description adds value by clarifying that this supports multi-table queries, implying 'text' can contain multiple table names, but doesn't specify the format (e.g., comma-separated, wildcards). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: searching for table structures based on table names, with support for multi-table queries. It specifies the verb ('search for table structures'), resource ('database'), and scope ('based on table names'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_table_name or get_table_index.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions multi-table query support but doesn't clarify when this is preferable over single-table queries or how it relates to sibling tools like get_table_name (which might retrieve table names rather than structures) or execute_sql (which could query table data).

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