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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states annotations survive sessions, are merged into future db_get_schema responses, and calls it the core of persistent memory. This effectively communicates the mutating and persistent nature. It doesn't discuss permissions or reversibility, but given the positive intent (annotating for better future queries), the transparency is adequate.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, contextual motivation, usage guidance, parameter list, and return type. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. There is 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?

Despite 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, parameter semantics, and return format. It also explains how it integrates with db_get_schema, providing sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. The Args section provides clear semantic explanations for each parameter, including schema qualification for table, relationship between column and column-level fields, and the dict format for enum_values. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 persists semantic annotations for tables or columns, surviving across sessions. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the persistent memory mechanism that feeds into db_get_schema, a unique role not covered by other sibling tools.

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 explicitly advises calling this tool after discovering semantic knowledge (enum meanings, column purposes, relationships). While it doesn't list when to avoid it or name alternatives, the context and sibling list imply when to use versus when to use other tools like db_get_schema or db_query.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description explains the deprecation flag is surfaced in db_get_schema and that operation is reversible. Lacks details on permissions or side effects, but sufficient for a soft-retire tool.

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?

Well-structured with summary, usage guidelines, and argument list. Slightly wordy but each sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all inputs, explains return format, and mentions interaction with db_get_schema. Distinguishes from sibling db_forget.

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 0%, but description provides full argument list with detailed explanations, defaults, and usage nuances (e.g., connection defaults to first defined, column omitted means whole table).

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?

Description clearly states the tool soft-retires a table or column annotation, distinguishing it from db_forget which removes entirely. Specific verb+resource combination.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (table/column still exists, should not be relied on) and when not (use db_forget instead). Also mentions reversibility via undo=True.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only ('Changes nothing — purely a report.') and details what it surfaces (orphaned annotations, undocumented tables). It also outlines the return structure (connection, orphaned_tables, etc.), providing full transparency without relying on annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear verb-resource statement, uses bullet points for key outputs, and includes a separate Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's function, when to use it, what it detects, and the format of its return. No gaps remain for the intended use case.

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 input schema only has one parameter (connection) with default null. The description adds meaning by stating 'Defaults to first defined,' which goes beyond the schema's default value. Given the parameter's simplicity, the description provides sufficient context.

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 purpose: 'Audit saved annotations against the live database schema (read-only).' It specifies the verb (audit) and the resource (annotations vs live schema), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_forget and db_deprecate by emphasizing it is a read-only report that detects drift.

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 guidance: 'Run after schema changes, or periodically.' It also advises on follow-up actions ('Remove with db_forget, or db_deprecate if pending.'), making the usage context clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: runs driver-specific FK introspection queries, persists to KnowledgeStore, and implies potential impacts (live database query). Could mention performance implications or permissions, but still transparent.

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?

Well-structured with a short summary, usage guidelines, and listed args/returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Completely covers the tool's lifecycle, return format, and relationship to sibling tools. No gaps given the simple parameter set and no output schema.

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 description includes an Args section explaining the single parameter 'connection', its meaning, and default behavior ('Defaults to first defined'), adding value beyond the schema which only shows default null.

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 discovers all foreign key relationships and saves them to the graph. It uses specific verbs (discover, save) and resources (foreign key relationships, database, graph), and distinguishes from sibling tool db_get_relationships.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Run once per database; re-run after schema changes') and when not, by directing to use db_get_relationships for navigation after discovery.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior. It states 'Safe by default — NOT reversible,' explains cascade behavior, and clarifies that only the local knowledge store is changed, never the live database.

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 well-structured with bullet points and examples. Every sentence adds value, and critical information is front-loaded immediately after the first line.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return object structure. It covers all necessary context: irreversibility, local-only modification, cascade behavior, and relation to siblings. Complete for a destructive knowledge store tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed semantics for all 4 parameters: table examples, connection default, column omit behavior, cascade ignored when column given. This adds significant value beyond 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 purpose: 'Permanently delete a table or column annotation.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like db_deprecate (soft-delete) and pairs with db_detect_drift.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to remove a wrong annotation, or to clean up after a table/column was dropped from the DB.' Provides when-not guidance by contrasting with db_deprecate, and explains cascade opt-in to prevent accidents.

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

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

The description discloses the output format (neighbor list and join paths) and the prerequisite step. As no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it lacks explicit mention of side effects or idempotency but is sufficient for understanding behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It is concise without unnecessary words, front-loading the primary purpose and then detailing parameters and output.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is comprehensive: it explains the output structure, prerequisite, and each parameter fully. An agent can correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters, their purposes, defaults, and even a recommended maximum depth for depth. This provides complete semantic understanding.

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 purpose: retrieving the foreign key relationship graph for a table up to a given depth. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly requiring db_discover_relationships to have been run first.

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 clear usage context: it explains depth levels and that the prerequisite tool must be run first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the prerequisite.

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

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses caching behavior, force refresh mechanism, and annotation merging, providing complete behavioral 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, caching, param details, and return structure, making it complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: table with DB-specific examples, connection with default, and force_refresh with functionality, adding significant value.

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 retrieves column schema merged with semantic annotations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like db_annotate (which adds annotations) and db_list_tables (which lists tables).

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 context on when to use (to get annotated schema) and parameter usage, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives to sibling tools, which would improve clarity.

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

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

Discloses that passwords and usernames are not exposed, which is a key behavioral trait. However, does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, though implied for a list operation. No annotations to contradict or supplement.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a returns block. Front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Fully explains what the tool does and what it returns (list of connections with name, driver, database, server). No missing info given the simplicity of the tool and absence of parameters.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info. Schema coverage is 100% by default.

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?

Clearly states listing all configured database connections without exposing sensitive info. Differentiates from siblings like db_list_tables by specifying the resource (connections). Uses specific verb 'list' and describes return fields.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool first before other tools to see available databases. Provides a clear usage context and sequential guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that descriptions come from the knowledge store (richer than raw schema) and that tables are only shown if known. No destructive behavior implied. Return format is given.

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?

Well-structured with clear purpose, behavioral notes, Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, return format, and parameter behavior. Complete for its complexity.

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?

Single optional parameter 'connection' is documented with default behavior ('Defaults to first defined'), adding useful meaning beyond the schema type and default.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all known tables for a connection, including descriptions and column counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like db_get_schema (which fetches schema) and db_annotate (which annotates) by noting that tables appear only after those actions.

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?

Provides context by explaining that tables appear only after being fetched or annotated, guiding the user on prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

The description discloses that queries run in an immediately-rolled-back transaction and that write statements are blocked both statically and at the transaction level. It also outlines the return structure (rows, row_count, connection, database, truncated). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a brief note on transaction behavior and a recommendation to use a sibling tool, then a bullet-style summary of parameters and return value. No superfluous information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main behavioral aspects (transaction, write blocking), parameter semantics, and return format. It could optionally mention error handling or performance implications, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive meaning for all three parameters: sql (SELECT-only), connection (defaults to first defined), and max_rows (default 500, lower for large tables). This goes far beyond the bare schema, which only supplies names and types.

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 executes a read-only SELECT query and returns rows as a list of dicts. It specifies that write statements are blocked, making the purpose unambiguous. Although not explicitly compared to siblings, the verb-resource combination ('Execute a read-only SELECT query') is specific and distinct.

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 advises to call db_get_schema first if unfamiliar with the table structure, providing a clear alternative. It also implicitly limits usage to read-only queries (SELECT only) and mentions max_rows for large tables. However, it does not explicitly exclude other query types or describe when not to use the tool beyond the SELECT constraint.

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

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

No annotations, but the description covers search behavior (BM25 ranking), fallback, and output structure. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but the context implies it; still substantive.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, minimal redundancy, front-loaded usage tip, and efficient use of bullet points. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive, covering input, output, and edge cases (invalid syntax). Could mention performance but not necessary.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: query syntax (FTS5), connection default, target options, and limit default, adding significant meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for tables/columns using BM25 ranking, distinguishes it from db_list_tables, and lists the fields it searches across, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool before db_list_tables when looking for specific concepts, contrasts it with db_list_tables' behavior, and mentions fallback for invalid FTS5 syntax.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that only tables/columns existing in target are synced, with skipped and warnings reported. It also describes the return structure in detail.

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 concise and well-structured with a typical use case, behavior explanation, and clear Args/Returns sections. No superfluous words.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers the sync process, edge cases (missing items), and return format, leaving no critical gaps.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining 'from_connection' and 'to_connection' as source/target with example values ('orders.staging', 'orders.prod'), and 'tables' as an optional list of FQNs defaulting to all. This provides clarity beyond 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 copies annotations between knowledge stores. It uses a specific verb 'sync' and resource 'annotations from knowledge store', distinguishing it from sibling tools like db_annotate or db_query.

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 provides a typical use case: syncing from staging to prod after confirming schema match. It also explains behavior for missing tables/columns. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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