get_database_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 what is returned (DDL for tables, views, indexes) and that it is a read-style retrieval, but says nothing about cost, permissions, or behavior on a missing/invalid db_path. Reasonable for a simple read, but not rich.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a compact Args block; the core behavior is front-loaded and there is no filler. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly boilerplate but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still summarizes the returned content. For a zero-required-param read tool this is essentially complete; only the missing sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that db_path is an optional SQLite file path and that omitting it falls back to the default database path. That fully covers the single parameter's meaning and default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the full CREATE DDL statements and schema definitions') and scopes it to 'all tables, views, and indexes', which implicitly separates it from describe_table (single table) and list_tables (names only). It does not explicitly name the siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied by 'full ... for all tables' — an agent can infer this is the whole-database dump versus per-table inspection — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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