cf_d1_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Inspect' reasonably conveys a read-only operation and the 'without a full schema dump' phrasing signals a scoped, lightweight call, but it discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the scope is capped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the core action and scope first, then the outcome. No wasted words, though it packs the rationale and scope into one clause.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the optional table narrowing. Return format is handled by the output schema, so the remaining gap is only the unexplained required database parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description compensates for the optional 'table' param by stating it narrows inspection to a single table, but the required 'database' parameter's meaning is left entirely to its name.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (table and view DDL of a D1 database), with the optional single-table scope. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not name the sibling cf_d1_query or cf_d1_list_databases to distinguish itself explicitly.

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 clause 'so an agent can write valid SQL without a full schema dump' implies the usage context (pre-query schema discovery), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against cf_d1_query or cf_d1_list_databases.

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