rails_lens_get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the verb 'get', which aligns with the annotations. No contradictions; the description is neutral but not informative beyond annotations.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from mentioning that it returns the full schema structure, but the context of the sibling tools and annotations make it sufficiently clear. The output schema likely provides the necessary details.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage via schema description. According to the rubric, when there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and no value is added or lost.

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 'RailsアプリのDBスキーマ情報を取得' clearly specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'DB schema information' for a Rails application. It is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on analysis, dependencies, or code inspection rather than schema retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 18 sibling tools, the lack of usage context or prerequisites leaves the agent without decision support. The description merely states what it does without any conditional or exclusionary information.

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