tables_db_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns a JSON object with the database metadata,' which hints at read-only behavior and output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output information. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral details, but it's efficient overall.

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 low complexity (single parameter, retrieval operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, response structure). The mention of 'JSON object with the database metadata' partially addresses output but lacks specifics, leaving gaps 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'database_id' documented in the schema as 'Database ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 purpose: 'Get a database by its unique ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (database). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tables_db_list' (which lists databases) and 'tables_db_get_table' (which gets a table). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'tables_db_get_column' or 'tables_db_get_row', which have similar 'get' patterns but target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a database ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing databases), or refer to sibling tools like 'tables_db_list' for browsing. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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