schema_usage

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition that it only finds direct references (not transitive) provides valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. 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 sentences: first states purpose concisely, second adds critical usage guidelines. No filler; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose and usage boundaries, but it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., indexing) and leaves parameter semantics unaddressed, making it just adequate.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions), but the tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter (e.g., projectId, projectRef, object, schema). The description only mentions 'indexed schema object' without mapping to parameters.

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 'find where an indexed schema object is defined and directly referenced in app code', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing alternatives for transitive paths.

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 explicitly states 'RPC-mediated touches are intentionally excluded' and provides four alternative sibling tools for transitive schema paths, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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