inspect_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions caching behavior (60s cache unless refresh=True), which is helpful, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise: a single sentence followed by connection examples and a caching note. It is well-structured and easy to scan. Minor improvement would be front-loading the caching behavior more prominently.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers input parameters and caching. For a schema inspection tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand usage, though it lacks guidance on connecting to different database types.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides connection examples for the 'connection' parameter and explains the caching effect of 'refresh'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone, though it could detail connection string formats more systematically.

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 (inspect) and resource (database or ORM schema file). It provides concrete connection examples, making the purpose unambiguous. The tool name 'inspect_schema' further reinforces this, and sibling tools like 'apply_change' and 'simulate_impact' are clearly distinct.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where it is inappropriate or suggest other tools like 'inspect_config' for different schema aspects. No preconditions or contexts are given.

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