get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only operation, not permission/privilege requirements (relevant given it reports grants), and not the shape or size of the result. For an introspection tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness; it is a sentence fragment with no verb and no structure to front-load. Nothing is wasted, but nothing earns its place either.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the only source of information and it omits the operation itself, its safety profile, its defaults, and its return content. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from what is given.

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 single 'schema' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 'public' that the description never mentions. The phrase 'in a schema' only loosely gestures at the parameter and provides no format, default behavior, or fallback semantics.

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 is a noun phrase ('Tables, views, columns, grants and functions in a schema') with no verb, so it never states that the tool retrieves or introspects anything. It adds the list of returned object types beyond the bare name get_schema, but an agent must infer the action entirely. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like run_audit_query or scan_repo.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when an agent should prefer this over run_audit_query or scan_repo, and no prerequisites. The only hint of context is the phrase 'in a schema', which is not actionable guidance.

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