get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic action. It doesn't describe return format, scope semantics (e.g., all tables when omitted), or any side effects. With no extra behavioral disclosure, the description adds nothing beyond what annotations already convey.

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 focused sentence with no filler; it front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose. Nothing extraneous is present.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be improved by noting that the table parameter is optional (though the schema already says this) and by mentioning what kind of schema information is returned. Overall, an agent can correctly identify and invoke the tool with the provided information.

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 the parameter descriptions already explain table (optional) and connection (required). The description adds no extra meaning to either parameter, such as expected formats or special values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('database schema information'), and identifies the target ('specific tables'). This distinguishes it from siblings like query, get_indexes, and get_stored_procedure at a glance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings or mention that omitting the table returns all tables, which is a minor clarity gap.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as query, get_indexes, or get_stored_procedure. There is no explicit when/when-not, and the existence of closely related sibling tools makes this absence noticeable. Usage context must be inferred entirely 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.