get_base_schema

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the caching behavior, including cache ID and chunked fetching. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or detail any permissions or side effects, but the caching mechanism is well explained.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then efficiently explain the caching behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers the main functionality and caching, it lacks details on the return format or structure, especially since there is no output schema. It could also clarify the relationship between cache_id and chunk_offset more explicitly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of caching parameters and the optionality of table_ids, providing context beyond the schema definitions.

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 complete base schema including all tables and fields, which is a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual records, fields, or views.

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 usage for fetching schemas, especially large ones, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or list_fields. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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