get_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the raw 1-indexed array return format, the null slot at index 0, single-record behavior with id, null for missing records, and explicitly states 'Read-only.' This goes beyond the schema to explain observable behavior comprehensively.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the primary action, then return format, then usage guidance and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, and it avoids repeating schema details verbatim beyond the necessary context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values itself; it does so thoroughly (array, indexing, null behavior, field granularity). It also covers scope exclusions and safety (read-only), making it complete for a tool of this complexity. No meaningful gaps remain.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the type enum and id description already present, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic clarity by explaining the behavior of omitting vs. providing id—returning the whole table versus a single record or null—and emphasizing that these are full records, which enriches the parameter 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read a database table in full' and enumerates the exact tables it covers. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by naming alternatives like list_names and search_actors, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance: it recommends list_names for id→name lookups, search_actors/search_items/search_skills for name-based searches, and get_map_infos/get_map for maps/tilesets. This directly addresses alternatives and exclusions.

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