analyze_normalization_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'heuristic approach', which is a vague caveat. It does not disclose whether the tool performs a read-only analysis, whether it scans all tables by default (schema and tableName optional), what the output format is, or any potential performance impact. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key qualifier 'heuristic approach' and the specific normalization levels. There is no redundant or filler content, and every word adds value.

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?

Despite having only 2 optional parameters and a concise description, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, a score, a list of violations) or how the result should be interpreted. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly, it needs more context about the output and potential side effects, so the description is 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 100%, meaning both parameters (schema and tableName) are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but does not need to. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not contradict or extend it.

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 uses a specific verb 'analyze' and identifies the resource 'normalization level of tables', plus the method 'heuristic approach' and the specific forms (1NF, 2NF, 3NF). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_table, which likely covers broader table analysis, and get_table_statistics, which focuses on statistical metrics.

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 implies usage: when you need to check normalization level. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or caveats about when not to use it. The phrase 'heuristic approach' hints at a non-exact analysis but does not guide the agent toward or away from specific scenarios.

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