inspect_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states what information is returned but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention potential performance impact on large schemas. While obviously non-destructive, the description lacks such explicit transparency.

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 efficiently conveys the two modes of operation. No extraneous words; it is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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?

The description covers the main return elements (row counts, sizes, columns, types, constraints, foreign keys). Although no output schema exists, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It does not detail ordering or formatting, but that is acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds value beyond the schema: it explains that omitting 'table' lists all tables, and for 'timeout_ms' it advises increasing for slow/remote databases. This provides helpful context.

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: listing all tables with row counts and sizes, or inspecting a specific table's columns, types, constraints, and foreign keys. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on performance analysis (indexes, slow queries, bloat, etc.).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it should be used for schema exploration before more specific analysis tools.

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