get_all_table_references

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains it extracts table/CTE names and returns JSON with specific attributes. However, it omits details about side effects (none expected), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' structure is clear. A minor improvement could be removing 'Args' and 'Returns' labels to be even more succinct.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (JSON with catalog, database, alias, and CTEs). It covers both input parameters. Missing details like error conditions or dialect validation, but overall sufficient for a simple extraction 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It describes 'sql' as 'SQL statement to analyze' and 'dialect' as 'Optional SQL dialect (e.g., 'mysql', 'postgres')'. This adds useful context beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 clearly states 'Extract table and CTE names from SQL statement', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_column_references' which extracts columns, making it clear what this tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'lint_sql' or 'transpile_sql'. The description is purely declarative without usage context or exclusions.

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