get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals output format (Markdown) and conditional behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), prerequisite validity of connection_name, or error handling for invalid table_names. The description adequately conveys read-only nature but lacks edge-case details.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then detail the parameter-driven behavior. No redundant words or unnecessary details. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter effect, and output format adequately. While it does not specify the exact Markdown structure or error messages, it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly. A brief example or note on connectivity would enhance completeness.

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 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the optional parameter changes output (summary vs column details). This behavioral mapping helps the agent understand the impact of omitting or including table_names.

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 it retrieves the database schema in Markdown format. It distinguishes default behavior (all tables summary) from optional behavior (specific table details with table_names). This verb+resource+scope specification effectively separates it from siblings like list_connections or read_sql.

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 explains when to use each parameter variant: omit table_names for summary, provide for column details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., for schema inspection vs data queries), though the purpose is clear. Slight room for improvement in exclusion guidance.

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