get_schema

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

The description correctly implies a read-only operation by stating it retrieves schema information. With no annotations providing safety hints, the description carries the burden and adequately communicates the non-destructive nature. However, it omits details like permissions or side effects, which are likely negligible for a schema retrieval 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, clear sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core action. Conciseness is excellent.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not provided), the description is complete enough. It clearly states the output (list of tables and columns) and context (public schema of PostgreSQL). No additional details are necessary for this straightforward tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add meaning beyond the empty schema, but for zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema already fully defines the interface.

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 a list of tables and columns from the public schema of PostgreSQL. The verb 'obtiene' (gets) and resource 'tablas y sus columnas' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'execute_query' which likely executes 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?

While the description implies this tool is for exploring schema structure rather than executing queries (given the sibling), it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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