export_schema_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the export action and parameter meanings. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the returned DDL includes, whether special permissions are needed, or how branch_name affects the output.

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 core purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every line earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 3-parameter export tool with an output schema, the description covers the main parameters and the outcome. However, the absence of annotations and usage guidance leaves gaps in side-effect transparency and alternative selection, making it only minimally 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the Args block adds meaningful semantics: schema_uuid is 'UUID схемы', dialect is 'Диалект SQL' with default 'postgres', and branch_name is 'Ветка схемы' with default 'main'. This compensates for the lack of parameter descriptions in the input schema, though it does not enumerate allowed dialect values.

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 the specific verb-resource phrase 'Export schema to SQL DDL' (Экспортировать схему в SQL DDL), clearly stating what the tool does and its output format. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like import_sql_into_schema or get_branch_migration.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as preferring DDL export over get_branch_migration or ai_apply_schema. The only implied usage is the verb 'export', but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools.

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