sql_editor_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on result size, whether all objects are returned, latency, or caching. For a potentially large catalog read it discloses none of its operational traits.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing parameter and behavioral detail.

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 tool is simple (one param, read-only, no output schema), yet the description leaves the parameter format and the shape/size of the returned catalog undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for correct invocation.

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 single required 'database' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only alludes to 'one database' without saying whether it takes a name, identifier, or connection-qualified reference. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a concrete deliverable – tables, columns and routines of one database – so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely named siblings such as schema_explorer_tables, schema_explorer_table, list_tables or describe_table, and the SQL-Editor/tree framing is the only differentiator.

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 phrase 'for the SQL Editor's tree and autocomplete' implies the intended use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives like schema_explorer or describe_table. The agent must infer which schema-listing tool to pick.

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