db.schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns different output depending on mode, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it explain behavior around the 'filter' or 'database' parameters. The term 'Inspect' implies non-mutating behavior, but some edge cases remain undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and the two key usage modes. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, no annotations, and 3 unspecified parameters, the description only partially completes the picture. It explains what the tool does and the mode options, but lacks details on 'filter' and 'database' parameters, default behavior, and any side effects. It is adequate for a simple inspection tool but leaves clear gaps.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for all parameter meanings. It only explains the 'mode' parameter ('summary' vs 'full') and leaves 'filter' and 'database' entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('database schema'), and distinguishes the two modes ('summary' for table list, 'full' for columns and keys). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like db.table_info, though it does not explicitly call out the difference.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use each mode ('Use mode='summary' for table list or mode='full' for columns and keys'), which is useful. However, it does not explain when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools like db.table_info or db.indexes, leaving the cross-tool decision to the agent.

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