mirrored_database_get_definition

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the call is long-running and performs a write of definition files. This gives agents a clearer expectation of side effects and runtime profile, though it does not detail asynchronous completion behavior.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, a runtime warning, and the main side effect with no filler. The key phrase 'get definition' leads, and 'long-running' is placed as an immediate caveat.

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 three-parameter read-oriented operation with no output schema, the description covers the main points: resource, action, long-running nature, and file output. A minor gap is that it does not explain what the call returns or how an agent should treat the long-running operation, but this is not critical given the file-write behavior.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description's mention of writing to the output directory is consistent with the schema but adds little new semantic information beyond what outputDirectoryPath already states.

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 names the exact action (get definition) on a specific resource (mirrored database), and further clarifies the operation by noting it is long-running and writes files to an output directory. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mirrored_database_get and mirrored_database_update_definition.

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 the use case: call this when you need a mirrored database's definition materialized as files. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as mirrored_database_get or other get_definition tools, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites.

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