get_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that output is summarized for tables/command lists, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe the return format or edge cases. The verb 'list' implies a read operation, but more explicit confirmation would strengthen transparency.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the action and immediately give the relevant kinds and an important usage note. No filler or repetition.

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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, kinds, and summarization behavior. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to the dedicated getter tools and what the returned entries contain, which would make it more complete.

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 provides an enum for the single 'kind' parameter, and the description repeats the enum values in prose, giving context for parameter selection. However, it does not define each kind's semantics or how the output varies by kind, so the description adds limited value over the schema.

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: 'List all entries of a database file.' It enumerates valid kinds and distinguishes itself from get_database_entry, which provides full data. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from a sibling tool.

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?

It advises that 'Tables and command lists are summarized; use get_database_entry for full data,' which is an explicit alternative for a different use case. However, it does not mention dedicated getters like get_items, get_actors, etc., which might be more appropriate for specific categories, leaving some ambiguity.

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