ArcadeDB Multi-Model DBMS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly ('Get') and specifies the scope of returned information, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or potential side effects. It adds some context beyond the schema but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific data points without waste. Every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness for a simple read operation but lacks details on return structure, error cases, or operational context. It covers what information is retrieved but not how it's formatted or delivered, leaving gaps for the agent to handle.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the output semantics (what information is retrieved). Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('ArcadeDB server information'), listing concrete data points like version, server name, query languages, and HA/cluster status. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_server_settings (which likely focuses on configurable settings) or list_databases (which targets database enumeration).

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 retrieving server metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_server_settings or execute_command. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the listed information types.

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