Listar FKs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Foreign keys del schema', which implies a read operation but doesn't specify the output format, whether it returns constraint names, referenced tables/columns, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves major behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it's a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It front-loads the key term 'foreign keys' but lacks essential details, making it under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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 and no annotations, so the description should explain what the result will be; it doesn't. The sibling tools provide context that this lists FK constraints, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior or output.

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 input schema has one parameter (schema) with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'del schema' but doesn't explicitly explain that the 'schema' parameter controls which schema's foreign keys are listed, nor does it mention the default 'public'. This provides insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Foreign keys del schema' clearly identifies the tool's domain—foreign keys in a database schema—which, combined with the verb in the name 'list_foreign_keys', states its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_tables' by focusing on foreign keys, though it doesn't mention alternative tools.

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 guidance is provided. The description doesn't say when to use this tool versus list_tables, describe_table, er_dot, or schema_summary, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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