get_table_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the search functionality but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in disclosing how it behaves beyond basic purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single bilingual sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's moderate complexity (search operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps in providing a complete context for 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'text' well-documented as '要搜索的表中文名、表描述，仅支持单个查询' (table Chinese name or description to search, single query only). The description adds minimal value beyond this, restating the purpose without providing additional syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names based on table comments/descriptions. It specifies both the action ('search') and resource ('table names'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_table_desc' (which presumably gets descriptions rather than searches by them). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'execute_sql' or other search-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 context by stating it searches 'based on table comments and descriptions,' suggesting it should be used when you have descriptive text but not the exact table name. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_table_desc' or 'execute_sql' for similar queries, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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