get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal pagination behavior ('Paginated to prevent token overflow') and lists what data is included, but it does not describe response shape, potential size, or performance implications beyond pagination.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then the content breakdown, usage guidance, and pagination note. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 description covers what the tool returns, why to use it, and pagination behavior, which is sufficient for a read-only schema inspection tool. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_tables and describe_table, but the 'all tables' scope largely handles that.

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%, so the schema already documents page, limit, and compact. The description adds only a general mention of pagination and token overflow, without adding meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the complete database schema for all tables.' It enumerates the returned contents (table names, columns, data types, nullable status, defaults, comments), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_tables or describe_table.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to understand the database structure before writing queries,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool relative to siblings like get_tables or describe_table.

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