get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format ('structured JSON') and the entity types included, which is useful. However, it says nothing about the likely large payload size of a full schema, the read-only nature, or how the connection parameter affects scope — meaningful gaps for a tool that could return a very large document.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and lists the payload contents. No padding, nothing extraneous.

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 usefully compensates by enumerating what the JSON contains. It is nearly complete for this simple read tool, missing only volume/cost expectations and a pointer to narrower siblings.

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% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents 'connection' with its default. The description adds nothing about multi-connection behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get the complete database schema') and enumerates what it contains (tables, columns, indexes, relationships), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like list_tables or describe_table, which cover a subset of the same information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_tables/describe_table, nor any note about cost or scope conditions. The agent must infer that this is the broad 'whole schema' option from the word 'complete' alone.

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