brain_db_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior via the system sqlite3 CLI and states that table names are validated to prevent injection. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not detail output format or error behavior.

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 concise sentences, with the first stating the primary function and optional argument, and the second adding behavioral notes. Every word contributes; 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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and key behaviors. It lacks an exact return format and error handling details, but it provides a functional understanding sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke and interpret results.

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 schema has one optional string parameter `table` with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that providing `table` switches from listing all tables to inspecting that specific table's columns/indexes/row count. It also mentions validation of table names, adding semantic meaning.

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 tool's function: listing tables in the configured SQLite database and optionally inspecting a table's columns/indexes/row count. It uses specific verbs ('list', 'inspect') and a distinct resource (database schema), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other brain domains.

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 exploring the local SQLite database schema, with a clear distinction between listing all tables and inspecting a specific one via the `table` parameter. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear, and the sibling tools appear domain-specific, making the usage unambiguous.

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