get_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it discloses the return format (CREATE TABLE statements) and scoping via database/connection_name. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/no side effects, nor does it mention edge cases like omitted database behavior. This is acceptable 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 two compact sentences plus a simple Args block. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no fluff or redundant metadata. Every line 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?

For a low-complexity, read-only tool with an existing output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about what happens when 'database' is omitted (all databases vs. a default) and does not position the tool relative to siblings. These gaps prevent full completeness.

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 schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section fills the gap. It explains 'database' as a name within the connection and optional, and notes connection_name defaults to 'default'. This adds meaning that the schema structure alone lacks.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('full database schema (CREATE TABLE statements for all tables)'). The parenthetical clarifies that it covers all tables, which differentiates it from siblings like get_table_info. The wording makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 when-to-use or alternative routing is provided, despite 12 siblings like get_table_info and schema_diff. The description implies this is the tool for a full schema dump, but it doesn't say when to prefer it over more targeted tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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