get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description discloses what information is returned (types, properties, indexes, inheritance), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, the granularity of the schema output, or how the inheritance hierarchy is presented. It's a reasonable disclosure 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the specific contents of the schema. There's no wasted text. Could add usage guidance but is appropriately concise for what it covers.

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?

The database schema retrieval is a moderately complex operation involving multiple data types and hierarchy, but the description covers the content scope well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent has no idea about the structure or size of the returned schema. The description is adequate but could benefit from noting ordering, nesting depth, or related 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (database), and the schema description for 'The name of the database' is already sufficient. The description doesn't add much beyond this, but with a single well-documented parameter there's little to add. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Get), resource (schema of a database), and specifically enumerates what the schema includes (types, properties, indexes, inheritance hierarchy). It's distinct from siblings like list_databases (which lists DBs) and query (which runs queries). Could be slightly sharper in differentiating but is precise and specific.

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 doesn't provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only introspection call, whether it requires specific permissions, or contrast with tools that might provide partial schema info. No when/when-not guidance given.

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