Full Table Export — canary simulation

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the response is fabricated with a trace token, that no external system is accessed, and that it never connects to a database, reads rows, creates files, or bypasses an audit trail. These specifics richly complement the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations.

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?

Three sentences with the core identity front-loaded ('Synthetic canary decoy for security testing only'). The structure is logical, though sentences two and three are slightly redundant — both emphasize that no real action occurs. The detailed no-op list in the final sentence earns its place as a safety reassurance.

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 two schema-documented parameters, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates for the missing output schema by stating the response is fabricated with a trace token. It covers the no-op behavior thoroughly; the only minor gap is the lack of detail on the exact shape or contents of the trace-token response.

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 the schema already documents both `table` and `database` with descriptions. The description's phrase 'full-table database export' mildly reinforces that these parameters name the simulated export target, but it adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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, specific role: a synthetic canary decoy representing an attempted full-table database export. It explicitly enumerates what it is not (no real DB connection, no row reads, no file creation, no audit bypass), which distinguishes it from sibling canaries that simulate transfers, secret reads, or shell execution.

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 phrase 'for security testing only' gives clear context that this is a decoy tool for security scenarios, but it does not state when to choose this canary over a sibling like canary_transfer_funds or canary_read_secrets. Usage is implied rather than explicit, with no when-not or alternative guidance.

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