get_database_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the action is to get a summary (implying a read operation), but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, performance implications, or the exact return format. The list of content types is helpful, but lacks detail on what 'statistics' encompasses or how the summary is presented.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key content types without waste. It uses no filler words, making it easy to scan.

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 relative simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of clear sibling tools, the description provides a basic scope of what is returned. However, it does not specify the response format, the depth of statistics, or how it relates to similar summary tools. It is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks contextual detail for an agent to set expectations about the output.

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 documents the only parameter 'databaseName' with a clear description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond noting that a database name is required; the parameter is straightforward and self-explanatory.

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 function with a specific action ('Get comprehensive summary') and identifies the target resource ('database'). It lists several concrete elements (statistics, size, schemas, last backup), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like tables or backups. The word 'comprehensive' is somewhat broad but the enumerated items add clarity.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what the tool does, without mentioning contexts where other sibling tools (e.g., list_databases, describe_table) might be more appropriate. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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