describe_table

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 implies a read-only operation by stating it describes columns, but does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, permissions needed, or any performance implications.

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, with two lines front-loading the purpose and parameter explanations. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 describe-table tool, the description covers the core behavior and parameters. The output schema exists, so it need not detail return values. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency slightly reduces completeness.

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. It clarifies that 'name' is the table name and 'schema' is optional. This adds necessary meaning beyond the raw schema types. However, it could provide more detail on the schema parameter's format or source.

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 verb 'describe' and the resource 'columns of a table', listing the attributes (name/type/length/nullable/default/primary key). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists tables) and read_query (which executes queries).

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 usage context or conditions provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings, such as when to use describe_table instead of list_tables or read_query for schema information. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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