explain_database_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the 'cached' nature and that it uses the real SQL definition, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't clarify cache semantics, error behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond what 'explain' implies.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it omits details about caching implications, whether the object must exist, or fallback behavior. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks edge-case context.

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 description does not explain parameters. The phrase 'procedure or trigger' hints at the object_type enum, but connection_id, schema, name, and table are not elaborated. The schema itself is self-explanatory, but the description adds little value beyond it.

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 explains one cached procedure or trigger from its real SQL definition. The verb 'explain' is specific to retrieving the definition, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_procedures (listing) and explain_query (query plans).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies a use case (getting a procedure/trigger definition) but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools like list_procedures or describe_table.

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