inspect_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what return format or output to expect, or whether it has side effects. The description only mentions input sources, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the analysis yields or what the output format looks like. It also fails to describe fallback behavior when no dbFile is provided, how project config is discovered, or any edge cases. For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, this gaps leave the description incomplete.

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 fully documents the single parameter dbFile with a description ('Specific SQL file (optional)'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds marginal meaning by mentioning project config as an alternative source when dbFile is not provided, but this is a limited extension of the schema information.

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: automatically analyze DB schema from .sql files or project config. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('DB schema'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or search_code by focusing on database schema analysis.

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 stated purpose: you'd use this tool when you need to analyze a database schema. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like read_file or file_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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