analyze_schema

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool runs an analysis, implying a non-mutating operation, but does not mention permissions, whether any state changes occur, or what happens with the output. No side effects or safety guarantees are disclosed.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the main action and purpose. The Args block is short and clearly separated, ensuring no wasted words. It is well-structured for quick reading.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description provides some context about what the analysis covers (metrics, quality rules, migration risks), but it lacks information about when to use the tool, potential expectations, or side effects. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in usage and behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an Args section restating the parameter names with Russian labels like 'UUID проекта' and 'UUID схемы', which add no substantive meaning beyond the schema titles 'Project Uuid' and 'Schema Uuid'. No additional constraints, formats, or relationships are explained.

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 with a specific verb ('Запустить' / 'Run') and resource ('анализ схемы' / 'schema analysis'), and even lists what the analysis includes: 'метрики, правила качества, риски миграций' (metrics, quality rules, migration risks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_schema or delete_schema by focusing on analysis rather than modification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does without any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate that this should be run before a migration or when to prefer it over ai_preview_schema.

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