SqlAugur

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, indicating it's a write operation with side effects. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that output is saved to a file (a side effect), describes the diagram content (tables, columns, PKs, FKs with smart cardinality), and implies generation behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the core action and key details (output format, file saving, diagram content). Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (9 parameters, write operation) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, output behavior, and diagram content. However, it could better address error conditions, file overwriting, or dependencies on sibling tools like list_servers and list_databases.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal param semantics beyond the schema, only implying filtering via include/exclude parameters and output path usage. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional syntax details, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Generate a Mermaid ER diagram saved to a file') and resource (database schema), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the output format (Mermaid vs PlantUML in get_plantuml_diagram) and content focus (ER diagram showing tables, columns, PKs, FKs with cardinality).

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 generating ER diagrams from databases, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_plantuml_diagram or get_schema_overview. It mentions the output format and content, but lacks context about prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools.

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