schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, which is a meaningful behavioral cue, but the description does not state safety guarantees, permissions, or potential errors. It adds some transparency but lacks richness.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words.

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 simple two-action tool, the description covers the core functionality. It does not explicitly describe return values, but 'show column details' implies the output. With no output schema, this is adequate but leaves some nuance unspecified, such as the exact format of returned data or database connection behavior.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'list all tables' and 'show column details' aligns with the enum values, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('Laravel database schema'), and enumerates two specific actions (list tables, show columns). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like migrationAnalyzer, which analyze migrations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when inspecting the Laravel database schema) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage rather than explicitly naming sibling tools or exclusions.

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