er_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It indicates the output structure but does not mention side effects (likely read-only), performance implications, or any limitations. The description is insufficient for a complete behavioral understanding.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the key action and returns structure.

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 tool's low complexity, the description partially covers the output (nodes with primary keys, edges with foreign keys) but lacks details on output format, optional parameter behavior, and any prerequisites. Without an output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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 input schema has one parameter 'database' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain this parameter at all, nor does it clarify how omitting it affects the output. The 'current database' phrase suggests a default, but the parameter's role is entirely unclear.

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 generates ER relationship graph data for the current database, specifying nodes as tables with primary keys and edges as foreign key relationships. This distinct purpose is well differentiated from sibling tools like list_tables or describe_table.

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 ER graph visualization but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or describe_table. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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