nds_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool operates on an 'installed' database library (implying local, not online) and that it inspects rather than modifies. However, it does not detail side effects, error conditions for missing libraries, or the exact response format, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key scope options. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making every word earn its place.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the what and the key optionality. It could be more complete by hinting at the output structure (e.g., returning table definitions), but the mention of tables/columns/foreign keys provides a reasonable mental model, so it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions for 'library' (with an enum) and 'include_indexes' (with a default). The description adds a general hint about 'optional indexes' which aligns with include_indexes, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's own parameter explanations. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' targeting the resource 'SQLite schema' and enumerates the scope (tables/columns/foreign keys, optional indexes). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling data-query tools like nds_query or nds_get_mass, making its purpose unmistakable.

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—when you need to inspect the schema of an installed database—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit notion of the library being installed. This meets the 'implied usage' criterion but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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