get_db_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: no Google network calls are made, which is critical for an agent to know. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or describe error handling, the simple return of path and existence suggests a safe, non-mutating operation, and offering the no-network detail is valuable beyond the schema.

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 conveys purpose, scope, and a key constraint without any redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and its distinguishing trait (no network calls). This is complete enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings, as it clearly covers the tool's role and usage 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('return') and identifies the exact resources: the local DB path and file existence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it makes 'no Google network calls', which contrasts with the likely network-based search and activity tools.

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 clear context: this tool is for local database path and existence checking without network calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'no Google network calls' phrase implies usage when avoiding network calls is desired, giving reasonable guidance relative to siblings.

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