db.constraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by 'List' and explains the optional table scoping, but it does not mention output format, error handling, permissions, or behavior when the table does not exist. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 action ('List constraints'), specifies the target resource, and enumerates the included constraint types. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 list operation with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits explanation of the 'database' parameter, the meaning of 'user tables' (as opposed to system tables), and any return structure. This leaves some gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 parameter semantics. It indirectly references the 'table' parameter ('one table'), but the 'database' parameter is not explained at all. There is no mention of parameter optionality, allowed values, or defaults, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource (constraints for user tables). It further specifies the scope ('all user tables or one table') and enumerates the constraint types (primary keys, foreign keys, unique constraints, checks), distinguishing it from sibling tools like db.indexes and db.relationships.

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 retrieving constraints, with an optional 'table' parameter to target a single table. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned. The context is clear but not fully specified.

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