get_schema_overview

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, performance impact, or authorization requirements. The description gives minimal behavioral insight beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence with no extraneous words, making it concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separating purpose from return info), but it earns a 4 for brevity.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the return format looks like. It mentions 'counts of objects, size info' but is vague. The tool is simple, but the explanation is incomplete.

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% (the only parameter 'database' has a description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Database name'; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'database schema', and specifies the kind of information returned (counts of objects, size info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables or get_table_columns by focusing on a high-level 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_databases or get_table_definition. There are no explicit exclusions or context on prerequisites.

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