Get compact schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safety. The description adds that caching is used and can be bypassed with fresh=true, disclosing behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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: first sentence conveys the core purpose, second sentence explains a key parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (tables, columns, keys, relations) and the caching behavior. Could be slightly more explicit about the text format, but overall sufficient.

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 only 33%, but the description adds meaning to the fresh parameter ('bypass the cache and re-read live') which is helpful. The schema and database parameters are not further detailed, but fresh is the key conditional.

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 returns a highly condensed text summary of schema metadata, specifying the verb (return), resource (schema summary), and purpose (save tokens). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schemas or describe_table.

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 guidance on when to use the fresh parameter (bypass cache after schema change) but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not thorough.

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