Base Saveddl

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it writes a file to disk, accepts comma-separated values for bulk retrieval, and returns file path/size/metadata. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether existing files are overwritten, whether the output directory is created automatically, or any permission requirements. With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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: a clear first sentence, explicit usage routing, a compact argument list, and a returns note. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because it repeats argument details that could live in the schema, but every sentence earns its place and the key scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call contract: what it does, when to use it, all parameters with defaults, and the response type. Minor gaps remain (file overwrite behavior, directory creation, error handling for invalid object types), but the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains database_name with an example, table_name with an example and the comma-separated bulk behavior, object_type with the allowed values and default, and output_dir with its default. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify exact file naming or path validation behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract... and SAVE'), a clear resource (Teradata table, view, or stored procedure), and the output artifact (.sql file on disk). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from base_tableDDL, which displays DDL without saving, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool ONLY when the user explicitly wants to export, write, download, or persist DDL to a file.' It also names the alternative (base_tableDDL) and the condition that selects it ('Do NOT use simply to display or view DDL in the conversation'). This is clear routing with no inference required.

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