SqlAugur

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, indicating this is a write operation that may have side effects. The description adds valuable context about file creation ('saved to a file') and the diagram's content scope, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. With annotations covering basic safety profile, this earns a baseline 3.

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 purpose and key features. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, output format, destination, and diagram content without unnecessary elaboration.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool produces (PlantUML file with ER diagram) and its scope. However, it doesn't mention the tool's complexity level, potential side effects beyond file creation, or what happens when parameters conflict. Given the rich schema coverage, this is mostly complete but could better address behavioral implications.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool generates diagrams from database metadata, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (like includeSchemas overriding excludeSchemas) or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 PlantUML ER diagram saved to a file') and resource ('database'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output format (PlantUML vs Mermaid in get_mermaid_diagram) and content focus (ER diagram vs other tools like describe_table or get_schema_overview).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to generate ER diagrams showing tables, columns, PKs, FKs with cardinality), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_mermaid_diagram for different diagram formats or get_schema_overview for non-diagram overviews.

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