get_schema_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or what happens if the schema doesn't exist. The phrase 'authoritative comment' hints at reliability but lacks specifics.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy.

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 has a single required parameter and an output schema, so the description can be brief. However, it lacks details about the return format or scenarios where the comment might be empty. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description doesn't explain the parameter 'schema_name'. The parameter is only defined by its name and type, with no additional context in the description.

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 the tool retrieves the authoritative comment for a schema, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_table_comment and get_column_comment. It emphasizes trusting this over the schema name, which adds context.

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 use when you need the true business purpose of a schema, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No direct contrast with siblings like list_schemas.

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