rpc_neighborhood

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description is not required to restate those. However, the description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., cost, permissions, failure modes). It only describes the composition, which is informational, not behavioral.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the dense technical jargon ('db_rpc-equivalent schema snapshot signature/body') may reduce clarity for some agents, but it is not excessive.

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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema present) and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameters or provide any usage context beyond the bundle composition. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter guidance is missing.

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 coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the six parameters. Only rpcName is indirectly referenced. No semantic meaning is added for projectId, projectRef, schemaName, argTypes, or maxPerSection.

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 combines multiple data sources (db_rpc-equivalent schema snapshot, schema_usage callers, trace_rpc refs, db_rls policies) into one bundle for a single RPC. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like db_rpc, schema_usage, trace_rpc, and db_rls by being an aggregator.

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 composing a neighborhood bundle but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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