describe_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what scope of schema is returned (tables only, or indexes/triggers/views too), or whether any permissions are required. The verb "Show" implies non-mutation, but that is the only implicit signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is exactly as short as it can be while still identifying the verb and resource.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format is covered elsewhere, and the zero-parameter schema means invocation is trivial. However, the description omits the read-only nature and scope of the schema, leaving behavioral gaps that matter for a database inspection tool.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case in the rubric. The empty schema is self-explanatory, so no additional parameter meaning is required 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?

A specific verb ("Show") and resource ("SQLite database schema") make the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from query_db by targeting schema rather than data, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling that could be confused for it.

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 purpose implies when to use it — when you need to inspect the database structure — but there is no explicit guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of query_db as the alternative for reading data. Usage is left to inference.

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