Resolve Database Config

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool resolves config from two sources with an explicit fallback order (workspace config, then backend local config). It does not describe failure behavior when neither source exists, but the dual-source precedence is real value.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the priority order. Nothing wasted, though there is no additional clarifying detail that could have been added cheaply.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But for a tool whose entire purpose is resolution logic, the description leaves key questions open: what happens when workspace_root is null, how conflicts between the two sources are merged, and what 'backend local config' covers.

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?

There is one parameter (workspace_root) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent must guess what passing null/default versus a path does, and whether that path drives the 'workspace config' lookup. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 names a specific verb (解析/resolve) and resource (数据库配置), and adds the resolution precedence (workspace config first, backend local config second). This is clear, but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like load_workspace_config or init_workspace_config that also deal with config.

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 explains the internal source precedence, which implies it is a resolution/lookup step, but it never states when an agent should call this instead of load_workspace_config, init_workspace_config, or the inspect_* tools. Usage is only inferable.

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