db_check_schema_drift

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three diagnostics performed, which is real behavioral substance, and 'inspect' implies a non-mutating operation, but it never states read-only safety explicitly, says nothing about cost/latency on large schemas, and does not describe what form the findings take.

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, and the most distinctive check (unindexed foreign keys causing cascade locks) is placed in the middle where it reads clearly. Slight overlap between 'schema health' and 'schema drift' keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left guessing at the return shape (a findings list? a health verdict?) and at whether the call is guaranteed read-only. Complexity is low at zero parameters, which limits the damage, but a sentence on output form or safety would close the remaining gap.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies, with no parameter gaps to compensate for.

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 names concrete verbs and resources: inspect schema health, identify unindexed foreign keys causing cascade locks, and detect schema drift. This is clearly a read-only diagnostic, distinct from query/commit siblings like db_query and db_commit. It stops short of differentiating itself from db_status or db_describe_schema, which overlap in the schema-inspection space.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated checks: an agent would invoke this before a migration or when investigating lock contention from unindexed foreign keys. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as db_status or db_describe_schema for simpler schema questions.

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