get_odb_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two useful behavioral facts: it is a compatibility wrapper and its output is formatted JSON. It remains silent on error behavior, timeout semantics, and differences from inspect_odb, so it is only minimally 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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the wrapper relationship and output format, though it is somewhat under-specified for the reader unfamiliar with inspect_odb.

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 output schema covers return values, but the description lacks the relationship guidance needed to choose between this tool and its sibling inspect_odb. It also omits any parameter context and does not explain the compatibility purpose, leaving key selection and invocation context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. 'odb_path' and 'timeout' are self-explanatory names, but no format, units, or semantics are added beyond the schema itself.

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 identifies the tool as a compatibility wrapper around inspect_odb and states that it returns formatted JSON, so the domain is inferable. However, it never states the actual operation or what information is returned; 'wrapper' is an implementation role rather than a clear purpose.

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 references inspect_odb as the wrapped tool but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent cannot determine whether to call get_odb_info or inspect_odb in a given situation.

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