Generate Prisma schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful context: it details the fallback behavior for unmappable types (`Unsupported`) and lists which database objects are covered. This goes beyond the minimal safety annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second details scope and behavior. Every word adds value.

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 tool's complexity (mapping many database features) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is included, what is excluded, and fallback behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 50% (only 'database' has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning of the required 'schema' parameter, nor does it provide additional guidance beyond what the schema already states for 'database'. With half the parameters undescribed and no compensation from the description, this dimension scores low.

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 explicitly states 'Read a PostgreSQL schema and emit a valid Prisma `.prisma` schema string (mirrors `prisma db pull`).' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like generate_diesel_schema or generate_sqlalchemy_models.

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 specifies what is covered (tables, columns, keys, constraints, enums) and what is out of scope (views, foreign tables, triggers, etc.), providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for out-of-scope items, which would have earned a 5.

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