document_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('Returns tables with fields, types, and relationships'), which is helpful, but it does not state whether the tool modifies the repository, requires specific permissions, or how it handles repositories without supported ORMs. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The list of ORMs is compact and informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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 (one parameter) and existing output schema info (though not shown), the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its supported ORMs. It lacks details on edge cases or fallback behavior, but overall it is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter repo_path, describing it as 'Path to the repository.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without contribution.

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 uses specific verbs ('Extract and document') and identifies the resource ('all database models from a repository'). It lists supported ORMs to further clarify scope, distinguishing it from siblings like document_api or generate_project_documentation.

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 its usage by naming the target resource (database models) and supported ORM frameworks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. This is clear context but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or what sibling tools to prefer.

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