claude-database-tools

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 mentions generating a DDL script but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (likely safe), what permissions are required, whether it affects database state, or what the output format looks like (e.g., plain text SQL). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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 without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and includes key optional features, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding relevant 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (generating DDL scripts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like safety, permissions, and output format. However, it does hint at the scope (columns, constraints, indexes), which aligns with the parameters, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'including columns, constraints, and optionally indexes,' which loosely maps to the parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Generates CREATE TABLE DDL script for an existing table, including columns, constraints, and optionally indexes.' It specifies the verb ('Generates'), resource ('CREATE TABLE DDL script'), and scope ('for an existing table'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'get_table_alter_ddl', which might have overlapping purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'describe_table' (which might provide metadata without DDL) or 'get_table_alter_ddl' (which might generate ALTER statements). There's no context about prerequisites, such as requiring the table to exist, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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