postgres_schema_overview

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, but it only states what the tool returns ('overview... all tables and their columns') without mentioning any side effects, performance implications, or whether it is a read-only operation. It does not add behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb ('Get') and resource ('database schema'), and contains no unnecessary words or filler.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic level of understanding but does not specify the exact composition of the 'overview' (e.g., whether it includes column types, constraints, or just names). This leaves some ambiguity about the return value's richness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. With no parameters to document, the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adequately fulfills this.

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 a specific action ('Get a complete overview') and resource ('database schema'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it covers 'all tables and their columns' rather than just listing tables or describing a single table. It is unambiguous and informative.

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 when to use this tool (when you need a full schema overview), but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like postgres_list_tables or postgres_describe_table. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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