get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the output (tables, columns, etc.) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, permissions, or performance characteristics. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the operation, second gives usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates what is returned (tables, columns, etc.), which is sufficient for this tool. It integrates well with sibling tools and the simple parameter. Minor gap: no mention of output format or limits.

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 100% (one parameter fully described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on the parameter's use or provide examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'introspect' and clearly identifies the resource 'database schema' with enumerated details (tables, columns, types, constraints, RLS policies). It effectively distinguishes from query-execution siblings like 'run_sql' and 'rest_query'.

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?

Explicitly states it is useful 'before writing queries', providing clear context for when to use. Does not specify when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is adequate for a straightforward introspection tool.

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