database.read_global

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says "Read database global string key." It does not mention whether the operation is read-only (assumed), if it requires any specific session state, if it can fail (e.g., key not found), or if it has side effects. The agent lacks safety guarantees about idempotence or error 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?

The description is extremely concise at just two words beyond the title. Every word earns its place, but it may be too terse for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It is front-loaded with purpose, but lacks necessary detail.

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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. The tool's simplicity (read a string) mitigates the gap, but there is no discussion of return behavior, error conditions, or data semantics. A complete description would need to address these gaps even for a simple read.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema names provide (key, session_id). The description does not explain the format, constraints, or role of the session_id or key parameters. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but it does not exceed that baseline.

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 "Read database global string key." clearly states the verb (Read), the resource (database global string), and the scope (key), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the context of sibling tools like database.write_global and database.info provides implicit differentiation, so it's still clear.

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 versus alternatives such as metadata.query or database.info. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, context for the key (e.g., global vs. session-specific), or hints about when a read is appropriate. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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