inspect_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool returns sensitive data (credentials, connection string) and exposes the port, which implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It adds some context but is not fully transparent.

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 sentence that directly states what the tool does without extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and result.

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 tool has three required parameters with clear descriptions, and the description enumerates the return values (credentials, exposed port, connection string, status). Despite the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently informs the agent of what to expect. All necessary information for a simple inspection tool is present.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: all three parameters (projectName, serviceName, type) are described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Retorna detalhes do banco de dados: credenciais, porta exposta, connection string e status' clearly states the verb (retorna) and resource (detalhes do banco de dados), specifying what kind of details are returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'inspect_service' and 'inspect_compose' by focusing specifically on database details including sensitive information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'inspect_service' or 'get_service_logs'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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