get_database_statsGet comprehensive database and system statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as scope, rate limits, or what system components are covered, providing minimal value beyond the structured fields.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though it could include more useful detail without becoming verbose.
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 has no parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, a simple description is mostly sufficient. However, 'comprehensive database and system statistics' is vague and could be interpreted in many ways, and there is no usage context provided, leaving some ambiguity.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.
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 uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'database and system statistics,' which is clear and distinct from sibling tools that focus on spec documents. However, it lacks specificity about what statistics are included, so it does not fully meet the highest bar.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states its purpose without any contextual cues or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct but there are clusters of similar functionality, such as multiple search mechanisms (search_specifications, semantic_search, get_requirements with a search parameter) and reference-graph tools (get_spec_references, get_spec_dependents, get_relationship_graph). Descriptions do differentiate them, but an agent could still be uncertain which to use for a given query.
Most tool names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_documents, search_specifications, get_requirements). However, semantic_search is adjective_noun rather than verb_noun, and get_database_stats is a generic outlier among the spec-focused tools. Overall the pattern is consistent with minor deviations.
With 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but not excessive for the breadth of functionality: search, metadata, requirements, test generation, relationships, and schemas. Each tool has a defined role, and the count feels warranted for the domain.
The tool set covers the core workflow well: discovering specs (search_specifications, list_documents), retrieving content (get_document_content, get_requirements), analyzing relationships (get_spec_references, get_spec_dependents), and generating tests (build_cross_spec_suite, generate_tests). Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a direct tool to fetch a requirement's full surrounding clause (workaround via get_document_content), but no critical dead ends.