get_db_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'SQL-migration snapshot' but does not explain whether the tool requires a live database, reads from migration files only, or if it has side effects. Behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, caching) are absent.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key terms ('Condensed SQL-migration snapshot'), no redundant words. Every element (tables, cols, types, etc.) contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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?

The description lists the output components comprehensively. For a read-only schema tool with 4 optional parameters, this is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks information about error conditions, performance, or whether the schema is extracted from migrations or a live database. Still, it covers the main 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?

All 4 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the schema components. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage; no significant semantic enhancement from the description.

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 specifies the tool's output: a condensed SQL-migration snapshot covering tables, columns, types, nullability, defaults, PKs, FKs, indexes, and RLS policies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_full_context' or 'analyze_config', which focus on code analysis rather than database schema.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites, limitations, or suggest tools like 'discover_project_actions' for broader context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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