get_database_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only status operation ('Check', 'list'), and it specifies what information is available (engine and tables). It does not mention potential errors or permission requirements, but for a simple status tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and directly followed by applicable usage context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant detail.

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 status-checking tool with no parameters and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, the engine types, the available tables, and when to invoke it. The output schema may provide additional return details, so the description does not need to enumerate them.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed since the schema is empty and the tool's behavior is fully described without 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('the active database'), and it explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on connection status and the database engine (SQLite or PostgreSQL). This is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from get_schema, execute_query, and insert_graph.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool at the start of a session or when you need to verify which database engine is connected and list the available tables.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it, though it does not name alternatives directly. The context is clear and actionable.

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