schema_check

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses it reports missing dependencies and uses 'ok:true' for contract check, but does not reveal if the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor any auth or rate limit info.

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?

Description is two sentences with no waste, clearly stating purpose and output meaning. Could be slightly more structured for readability, but overall concise and 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?

The description is adequate for a tool with one simple parameter, but lacks details on output format (no output schema). It mentions 'ok:true' but not the structure of the report, which is a gap for the agent.

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 100% with one parameter fully described in the schema (env with enum and default). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 introspects the live DB to report missing tables/columns that tools depend on, which is a specific verb+resource purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'db_query' or 'coverage_report' by focusing on contract drift breakage.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context for usage, such as prerequisites, when to check drift, or when to prefer other tools like 'db_query'.

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