Fingerprint fleet schemas

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral context: reads a fleet config file (litescope.fleet.yaml), outputs clusters with drift from canonical. Does not contradict annotations. Good additional context beyond structured fields.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds value: first explains core function, second mentions config file and read-only nature. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Tool has output schema (so return format is covered), schema coverage 100%, annotations complete. Description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it reads, and its read-only nature. Fully adequate for agent usage.

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 100%, so both parameters ('tag', 'config') are already described in the schema. Description does not add extra meaning or usage details for parameters, meeting baseline expectation for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool clusters SQLite databases by schema and reports distinct schemas and drift from canonical. Verb 'cluster and report' is specific, resource is 'fleet of SQLite databases', outcome is well-defined. Distinguishes from siblings like litescope_diff or litescope_schema.

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?

Description indicates it reads a fleet config file and is read-only, implying usage for fleet-level schema analysis. No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. Adequate but lacks exclusions.

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