yearning_table_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns field and index information and maps to a GET API, which is helpful but not extensive.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is in Chinese, which might affect clarity for non-Chinese agents. It is efficient but could briefly mention parameters.

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?

While the output schema exists and covers return values, the description omits details about the response_format parameter and its implications. The tool has multiple parameters (including a required nested object), and the description does not provide enough context beyond its basic purpose.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. The schema itself provides basic Chinese descriptions for source_id, database, table, and response_format, but the tool description adds no additional semantics. This is a significant gap given the parameter complexity.

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 including fields and index info. It specifies the API endpoint, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yearning_list_tables, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 such as yearning_list_tables or yearning_run_query. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be preferred.

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