schema_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating nothing is written to disk and that the mermaid diagram only appears when foreign keys exist. It also discloses the output ordering, which matters for a large documentation blob. It doesn't hint at cost or output size on large schemas, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long enumeration of included sections earns its place by telling the agent what the returned blob will contain. The 'paste the result where you want it' tail is a slightly colloquial but useful clarification that it is not persisted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers content and side-effect behavior well for a one-parameter tool. The remaining hole is the meaning and expected format of 'path', which is the only thing an agent must supply and is left entirely undocumented.

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% and the single required 'path' parameter is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no confirmation of whether it is a database file path, a connection string, or a sub-schema selector. The phrase 'whole schema' gives only the faintest hint about what the value scopes.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Generate markdown documentation of the whole schema as text', then enumerates exactly what the output contains (mermaid ERD, columns, types, keys, indexes, CHECK constraints, triggers, views). The 'whole schema' scope implicitly separates it from describe_table and schema_graph, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Nothing is written to disk; paste the result where you want it', which signals a human-facing doc workflow. There is no explicit 'use this when you need X instead of schema_graph/describe_table' and no stated prerequisites or size/cost caveats for dumping an entire schema.

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