ea_get_schema

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns tables, columns, indexes, and explains the rowidAlias (INTEGER PRIMARY KEY aliasing SQLite's rowid) and its null case, plus the rowidNote. It also notes that the table form 'echoes' the table name, giving the agent a clear picture of the output beyond the annotation.

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 well-organized: it front-loads the dual-mode behavior, then a detailed but relevant explanation of rowidAlias/rowidNote, followed by usage guidance and a sibling reference. It is not overly verbose and each sentence adds value, though the rowid explanation could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return structure. It covers the key fields (tables, columns, indexes, rowidAlias, rowidNote) and their meanings, and notes the relation to sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and when to invoke it, though it omits exact JSON formatting (e.g., arrays) which is minor given the explanatory depth.

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 schema covers the parameter (tableName) with its own description ('Omit to list all tables with row counts'), so baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining that providing tableName switches the output to columns and indexes and details the rowid fields, adding meaning beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the tool's action ('List the model's database tables') and the conditional behavior with a tableName to get columns and indexes. It differentiates from siblings by noting it reveals data beyond what the typed ea_* tools return and explicitly names ea_get_model_info for identity, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs.

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 a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use this to discover what data the model holds beyond what the typed ea_* tools return.' It also points to the alternative for identity (ea_get_model_info), offering a distinct context. While it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the guidance is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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