infomaniak_get_database

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context by specifying what details are included (disk usage, application, permissions, backups). No contradictions; the description complements annotations well.

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 of 18 words, front-loading the main action and then listing key attributes. Every word is informative with no 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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It lists included details, which is sufficient. The agent can infer required parameters from the schema. Slightly lacking in providing prerequisites or context about when to use this tool over others, but still complete enough.

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 description adds no information about parameters beyond what is in the schema. Schema description coverage is 50% (database_name has a description, hosting_id does not). The tool description should compensate but does not, offering no additional meaning for parameters.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('full detail of a specific database'), listing specific attributes (disk usage, application, permissions, backups). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_databases (list only) and infomaniak_get_database_user (user details).

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 implies usage for retrieving full details of a specific database, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like infomaniak_list_databases or infomaniak_get_database_user. No exclusions or context are provided.

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