inspect_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' and 'info' indicate a read-only operation, and the mention of connection string/status names the expected return content. However, it does not disclose sensitive-data handling, auth requirements, failure behavior, or whether any state is affected.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical adds concrete output details without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple read-style tool with three self-explanatory required parameters, but it lacks guidance on alternatives, output shape, or behavioral caveats. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the burden on the description, which is only partially met.

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 schema already provides basic descriptions for projectName and serviceName, and the engine enum lists valid values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, but the parameters are straightforward and adequately inferable from the tool's purpose. Given the partial schema coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('database service info'), and it names the expected outputs: connection string and status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_app, inspect_project, and inspect_compose because it is explicitly scoped to database services.

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 implies the tool should be used when a caller needs a database's service info, connection string, or status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling inspect tools or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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