Read Database Columns

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is appropriately lower. The description adds value by detailing exactly what is returned (columns, select options, view column mappings) and clarifies it works on empty databases, going beyond the annotation-only safety profile.

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 first sentence front-loads the action and object, while the second sentence adds essential usage context. Every word 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 parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers both what the tool does and a key scenario where it is particularly useful.

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 100%, with all parameters (docId, workspaceId, databaseBlockId) already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level nuance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Read schema metadata for an AFFiNE database block, including columns, select options, and view column mappings.' This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_database_cells, which focuses on cell data. The scope is unambiguous.

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 says it is 'Useful for empty databases before any rows exist,' which provides clear context for when to prefer this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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