codix.database.schema

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 says 'generate guidance' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects occur, or what the return format is. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that could potentially interact with a project's files.

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 with no wasted words, and it front-loads the primary action ('Generate database schema guidance'). However, it is under-specifying, omitting crucial information about parameters and usage, which makes it efficient but at the cost of completeness.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and only sparse parameter schemas (two optional fields with an enum), the description alone must provide context about what the agent will receive and how parameters factor in. It does not, leaving the tool only minimally viable for actual use.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'database' or 'entities' parameters at all. The agent is left without any explanation of what these parameters mean, how they should be populated, or how they affect the generated guidance. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'generate[s] database schema guidance' with a specific verb and resource, mentioning migrations, relations, and seeders. It differentiates from siblings like codix.api.generate by focusing on the database schema domain, though the word 'guidance' is slightly ambiguous (advisory vs. concrete output).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what the tool does without any context about suitable scenarios, making it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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