generate_erd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is text for the connected schema, implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether it reads the live schema, whether it requires a connection or permissions, or if there are any performance implications. No caveats or side effects are mentioned.

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, focused phrase that immediately communicates the output type (Mermaid erDiagram text) and the target (connected schema). It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema and zero parameters, the description covers the essential function. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not explaining what 'connected schema' means, how it differs from get_schema_overview, or any prerequisites. The tool appears simple, but a usage hint would significantly improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and this satisfies that.

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 identifies the resource ('connected schema') and the output format ('Mermaid erDiagram text'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on analysis (e.g., find_missing_indexes) and reporting (generate_report). However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name to imply 'generate', which prevents a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_schema_overview or generate_report. It does not state that it is for visualizing schema relationships, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. This is a significant gap for a tool with no parameter guidance.

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