resolve_database_config_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only reveals a priority order but does not disclose whether the tool reads, modifies, or produces side effects. Missing information on error handling, return behavior, or safety implications.

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 18-character sentence, which is concise but underspecified. It lacks structure and depth for a tool with a non-trivial purpose, though it contains no redundant verbiage.

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 low complexity and presence of an output schema (not described), the description should cover return value semantics. It does not, nor does it explain how the priority order affects output. Incomplete for confident invocation.

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%, yet the description does not mention the single parameter 'workspace_root'. It fails to explain its role (e.g., specifying workspace path) or its relationship to the priority order, forcing agents to infer from the Chinese text.

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 resolves database configuration with a specific priority order (workspace config first, then backend local config). The verb '解析' and resource '数据库配置' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like load_workspace_config_tool, but the purpose is still clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_workspace_config_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where this tool should not be used, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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