db_rpc

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

The description adds specific behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, listing exactly what aspects of a function it inspects. It is consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('Read-only database tool') and succinctly enumerates the information it provides. 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?

The description covers the tool's core functionality and output types, and an output schema exists to define return structure. It does not mention the output schema explicitly, but overall completeness is high given the annotations and schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'function signature, args, return shape, language, and security', which hints at parameters like name, argTypes, includeSource, but does not explicitly describe projectId, projectRef, or schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only tool for inspecting stored procedures or functions, covering signature, args, return shape, language, and security. This distinguishes it from sibling database tools like db_table_schema or db_columns.

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 usage for database function questions, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of 'read-only' helps, but more specific alternatives would improve clarity.

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