fm_introspect

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only analysis of the database structure using $metadata, implying no side effects. It is mostly transparent but could explicitly state it does not modify data.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and the conditional behavior. Every part is necessary, and there is no verbosity or redundancy.

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's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the two operational modes and mentions the source ($metadata). It could briefly hint at the output format (e.g., list or array) but is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 already has a 100% description coverage for the single parameter, explaining the behavior for empty vs. set values. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Analyzes the database structure' and specifies two distinct modes: listing tables or showing fields with types. This provides a specific verb and resource, and the tool's function is well differentiated from siblings like fm_query or fm_get_metadata.

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 explicitly explains the two modes based on whether the 'table' parameter is empty or set, which serves as clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like fm_get_metadata, missing a bit of comparative context.

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