Resumen de schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool counts tables and FKs and returns a compact list, but it does not clarify what the compact list contains, whether it applies to the entire schema or a specific one, or any other behavioral details. The ambiguity about 'compact list' is a significant transparency gap.

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, short sentence that is direct and easy to parse. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it highly concise despite its terseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format or clarify the nature of the 'compact list', nor does it address the 'schema' parameter. This leaves the agent under-informed about how to use the tool and what to expect in the response.

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 a default of 'public', but no description. The description does not mention this parameter, and with 0% schema coverage it fails to explain its meaning. The parameter name gives a minimal hint, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's own structural information.

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 provides counts of tables and foreign keys plus a compact list, which indicates its purpose as a schema summary. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table, though the phrase 'compact list' leaves some ambiguity about what exactly is listed.

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 implies usage for getting an overview or summary of schema objects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.

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