peaka_list_columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about discovery prerequisites and return contents, but it does not address pagination, error cases, authentication, or rate limits. This is solid but not rich behavioral context 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 main action is front-loaded, and the description stays compact with no filler. The first sentence gives purpose, the next gives return information, and the final paragraph gives necessary prerequisite and project-selection guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the return contents and gives the required preceding discovery steps. It also handles the ambiguous projectId case explicitly. Combined with the readOnly/destructive annotations, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 25% (only projectId is documented), so the description carries most of the weight. It compensates by directing the agent to peaka_get_project_metadata for catalogId, schemaName, and tableName, and to peaka_list_projects for projectId, including asking the user and remembering the choice. It does not state exact identifier formats, but it gives usable meaning for all four required parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all columns for a given table in the Peaka project') and specifies the output ('column names, data types, and constraints'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling metadata-discovery tools like peaka_list_tables, peaka_list_catalogs, and peaka_list_schemas.

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?

It gives explicit preparation guidance: call peaka_get_project_metadata first to discover catalogs, schemas, and tables, and if projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects and ask the user. It does not explicitly name alternate tools when this tool should not be used, so it lacks the when-not-to-use clarity needed for a 5.

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