schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the full result scope and making an explicit performance claim ('sub-millisecond O(1) row counts'). It doesn't discuss failure modes, but for a read-only introspection tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and resource, followed by a compact list of contents. It is efficient and scannable, though splitting into two sentences would improve readability slightly.

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 an output schema and a single well-documented optional parameter, nothing critical is missing. The description covers the result contents and performance. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from table_info, but that gap is more about usage guidance than 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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter's semantics, including accepted file extensions and default-database behavior. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail, but that is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get the schema of a SQLite database,' and enumerates the concrete contents (tables, views, columns, data types, constraints, indexes, foreign keys, row counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like query, explain, and table_info.

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 implies database-wide schema introspection by listing all tables and views, which hints at when to use it. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with table_info or says 'use table_info for a single table,' so alternatives are left to inference rather than stated.

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