db_schema_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'snapshot', which is reasonable behavioral context. It does not mention potential performance cost, output size, or whether the snapshot includes indexes/views/foreign keys, so some burden remains unmet.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the use-case sentence earns its place by guiding selection.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and when it is useful. It could be slightly richer by clarifying what is not included (e.g., indexes, foreign keys), but the sibling tool names help fill that gap.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter details.

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 clear resource ('full schema snapshot of all tables and their columns'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like db_describe_table, which would describe a single table, and db_list_tables, which would only list table names.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding the entire DB structure at once' provides a clear context for when to use this tool versus more targeted schema tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, which leaves some inference to the agent.

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