Get Schema Comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the returned comment is authoritative and should be trusted over the schema name, a genuine behavioral trait beyond the tool name. The verb 'Get' also communicates a read-only operation, though it doesn't address edge cases like missing comments.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a useful distinguishing note. There is no filler, and every phrase 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 simple getter with a single parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient business context and behavioral guidance. It doesn't cover error scenarios or absent-comment behavior, but those are likely defined by the output schema and are not critical for a basic retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'schema_name', but it adds little beyond the word 'schema'. It does not clarify formats, case sensitivity, or what identifiers are valid, leaving the parameter largely to inference from its name.

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 resource ('authoritative comment for a schema'), and adds meaningful context by explaining the comment defines the schema's true business purpose. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_table_comment and get_column_comment, which target different objects.

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 clearly implies this tool is for schema-level comments and even advises trusting it over the schema name, which gives context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of fully naming when-not-to-use or sibling tools.

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