get_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only metadata retrieval, but does not mention potential edge cases, error handling, or whether the database must be cached. The basic behavior is clear, but additional context is missing.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and the key output (DDL schema). No extraneous words or redundant details; it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with fully documented parameters and a self-explanatory output (DDL), the description is reasonably complete. It could mention that views are handled (already implied by schema) or return format, but the absence of an output schema and annotations makes this a minor gap. Overall, it covers the essential 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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so it neither improves nor worsens the semantic clarity.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('DDL schema for a specific table in a cached database'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or execute_query. It is unambiguous and directly describes the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is implied: it is for inspecting the schema of a specific table. No explicit guidance or alternative references are provided, so it falls short of a 4.

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