get_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and does not mention read-only nature, output format, error handling, or whether results are aggregated or paginated. This is a minimal disclosure for a read tool.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key action and resource, and the parenthetical list adds precise scope without excess length.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. It clarifies scope (constraint types) but does not mention constraints like foreign keys (which have a sibling tool), nor does it indicate the return shape or any prerequisites. It is minimally complete for an agent familiar with the domain.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'for a table', but the schema already explains table, schema, server, and database. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('constraints for a table'), enumerating the constraint types (PK, unique, check, default). It distinguishes from siblings like get_foreign_keys and get_indexes by being the general constraints tool, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_foreign_keys, get_indexes, or describe_table. The agent must infer from the name and sibling names, which is insufficient for new users or complex decision points.

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