linode_get_database

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that 'the root password is never returned', which is a critical omission agents must know. This goes beyond annotations to set accurate expectations.

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 three sentences (40 words) with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds constraints and important exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 (get a single entity) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is retrieved, how to identify it (engine and id), what fields are returned, a critical constraint on engine, and a notable omission (root password). The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The description compensates partially by specifying that 'engine' must be 'mysql' or 'postgresql' and suggests a source for it. However, it provides no details about 'database_id', leaving the agent to infer its name and type. A score of 3 reflects partial, but incomplete, parameter guidance.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'one Managed Database', and the identifiers 'engine and id'. It lists the returned fields (version, region, status, host, port, maintenance window), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. The name and description differentiate it from sibling list tools like linode_list_databases.

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 guidance on the 'engine' parameter: it must be 'mysql' or 'postgresql' and suggests getting it from linode_list_databases. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool (after listing) and ensures correct parameter values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other get tools, but the naming convention suffices.

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