db.preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention how the limit parameter affects results, whether all columns are returned, the ordering of rows, or the default behavior. This is a significant gap for a data-access tool.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It earns its place, but omits information about the other parameters and behavioral details, so it is concise rather than comprehensive.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, default limit, or database behavior. The presence of three parameters and a rich sibling context demands more detail.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds meaning to the 'table' parameter by noting it can be schema-qualified, but the 'limit' and 'database' parameters are completely undocumented. This is partial compensation at best.

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's action ('Preview rows from a table') and specifies the input format ('using table or schema.table name'). It is distinguishable from siblings like db.query and db.count based on the verb 'preview', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context is implied by the name 'preview', but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer db.query or other siblings.

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