yearning_table_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, providing the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return content (field attributes and index info) and the underlying API endpoint, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful API reference without any wasted words. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 read-only introspection tool, the description covers the main functionality and return value. It lacks explicit error scenarios, authorization requirements, or interaction with other tools, but these are not critical given the annotations and schema. The presence of an output schema (response_format) further reduces the need to detail return formats.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described), so the schema already handles most parameter semantics. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, such as how to find or format source_id, database, or table. Thus the baseline 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: viewing table structure, specifically field lists with type, nullable, key, default, comment, and index information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yearning_list_tables, which list tables rather than their fields.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description (inspect table schema when needed), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context signals and sibling names suggest differentiation, but the description itself does not spell it out.

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