get_schema

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or what happens if the connection_name is invalid. The minimal phrasing 'Retrieve schema information' provides no insight into side effects, errors, or performance implications.

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 is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as noting the output schema or the nature of the schema information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still lacks context about how to use the connection_name parameter, what the tool returns (beyond schema info), and how it relates to sibling tools. The presence of siblings like 'list_tables' and 'describe_table' makes the lack of differentiation a significant gap. The description is too minimal to be fully actionable.

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 has a single parameter 'connection_name' with type string, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what constitutes a valid connection name or how to obtain it. It does not, so it provides no added value for parameter understanding.

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 retrieves schema information for a named database connection. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Retrieve schema information') and implies a scope of a connection, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'describe_table' that focus on individual tables. However, it does not specify what 'schema information' includes (e.g., tables, columns, types), which slightly reduces precision.

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 'list_tables' or 'describe_table'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about valid connection names. The description lacks any advisory information to help an agent decide between siblings.

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