schemaGraphDot

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds clarity about the tool's output format (DOT/Graphviz ERD text) and the fact that it returns diagram source rather than metrics, which meaningfully supplements the annotation-only picture.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and output details are in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential differentiation from schemaGraph. Every clause earns 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 read-only export behavior, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what the output is, what it contains, and which sibling tool to choose instead. Minor omissions like how schema names should be formatted are partially covered by sibling listSchemas and the similar connection guidance, so the overall context is strong but not exhaustive.

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 documents the tables and connection parameters well, and the description clarifies that the tool can operate on 'a schema or selected tables', which gives semantic meaning to the schema and tables parameters. Only the schema parameter lacks an explicit schema-side description, but the tool-level wording mitigates this gap.

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 a specific verb ('Export') and names the exact resource ('schema or selected tables as DOT/Graphviz ERD text'), plus enumerates content details like columns, types, PK/FK markers, and join edges. It also explicitly contrasts itself with schemaGraph, making the tool's distinct purpose immediately clear.

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 gives an explicit alternative: 'Use schemaGraph for graph metrics rather than renderable diagram source.' This directly tells an agent when this tool is preferred and when schemaGraph would be better, which is strong routing guidance.

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