db_foreign_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation implied by the name and gives no detail on read-only guarantees, error behavior, or what happens for nonexistent tables. 'Get' weakly suggests read-only, but nothing beyond that.

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 filler or redundancy. It states the resource and the table target directly, which is appropriate for a one-parameter metadata tool.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter is fully covered by the schema, but there is no output schema or annotations to fill in missing context. The description does not indicate return shape, whether the table name must be schema-qualified, or what occurs when no foreign keys exist. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 100%: the only parameter, 'table', is described as 'Table name'. The description adds no extra meaning about naming conventions, qualification, or accepted formats, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-scoped resource ('foreign key relationships for a table'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like db_table_indexes and db_describe_table, so an agent can tell what this tool targets without opening the schema.

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 use when foreign key relationships are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as db_describe_table or db_table_indexes. No exclusions or routing conditions are provided.

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