claude-database-tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only metadata operation ('Describes') rather than a mutation, and specifies the scope of information returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like permission requirements, performance considerations for large tables, or error conditions for non-existent tables.

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, efficiently constructed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with specific details about what information is returned. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned. It could be more complete by mentioning the return format or any limitations, but it adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope given its simplicity and the absence of annotations.

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 100% with the single parameter 'tableName' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides about table naming conventions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Describes') and resource ('complete schema of a specified MSSQL Database table'), with explicit details about what information is included ('columns, types, constraints, indexes, and foreign keys'). It distinguishes this read-only metadata tool from sibling tools that perform data manipulation or DDL operations.

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 context by specifying it describes 'MSSQL Database table' schemas, which helps differentiate it from generic table operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_table_ddl' or 'list_tables', nor does it provide exclusion guidance for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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