db_review_comments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'Read' and 'append-only ledger', reinforcing the read-only nature and providing details about the data source (local, persistent, append-only). 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 concise sentences: first describes function and filters, second gives usage context. No extraneous information. Every sentence 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?

With 11 parameters, 0 required, and an output schema present, the description covers the core use case but does not detail all filter options or relationships between parameters. Missing mention of projectId/projectRef, which are likely needed for scoping. Could be more comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description lists major filter categories (object, category, tag, query, fingerprint) but omits projectId, projectRef, schemaName, parentObjectName, and limit. Only provides partial parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Read DB review comments from Mako's local append-only ledger' with specific filtering options (database object, category, tag, free-text query, target fingerprint). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'db_review_comment' by indicating this is a read/browse operation rather than a single comment operation.

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?

Explicitly states to 'Use during schema/table/RLS/replication review to recover prior AI/operator notes.' Provides clear context for when to use, but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools like db_review_comment.

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