get_corrections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'return' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what constitutes a 'correction', whether there are pagination or ordering guarantees, or any permissions/rate limits. The added note about the editor AI using a resource is more about usage context than the tool's own behavior.

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 very concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second provides useful context about the resource. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It provides enough context to understand what the tool does and why one might call it directly. However, the lack of annotations and lack of explanation about what corrections are means it is not fully complete, but it is adequate for a simple read tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, as the only parameter 'connection' is described as 'Database alias.' The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no additional semantic detail about the formats or constraints of the alias.

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's function: 'Return all logged corrections for a connection.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and identifies the resource ('corrections') and scope ('for a connection'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_correction (which creates corrections) and get_query_history (which returns query history).

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 provides context on when to call the tool directly: 'Call this tool directly to inspect them.' It also explains that the editor AI normally accesses this data via a resource, implying the tool is for manual inspection. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it is clear but not fully explicit about exclusions or alternatives.

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