get_database_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It claims read-only behavior ('Get') but does not confirm idempotency, performance impact, or whether it can be called without side effects. No mention of authentication requirements or data freshness.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or clutter.

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?

Although there are no parameters and no output schema, the description lists three categories of information. However, it lacks detail on the format or granularity of each (e.g., are database names just strings? Is configuration a key-value list?). For a tool with no other documentation, this leaves ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the nature of the output (database list, table list, configuration). This compensates for the absence of parameter documentation, exceeding the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('database information'), and enumerates specific types of information returned (database list, table list, configuration info). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on permissions, logs, and queries.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving general database metadata, but fails to specify conditions or when not to use it (e.g., for specific table schemas). Sibling tools are named but not contrasted.

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