list_foreign_keys

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose what the output contains (e.g., constraint names, columns involved, referenced table), potential side effects (none expected but not stated), or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 wasted words. However, it is so concise that it sacrifices informative value. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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 three parameters (one undescribed) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, which is important for a listing tool. Sibling tools like list_tables or list_indexes typically have richer descriptions. The description lacks completeness for a tool with this parameter count and no structured output details.

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 67% (database and connection have descriptions, table does not). The description adds no further context about the parameters, e.g., the format of the table name or whether it is case-sensitive. The agent must infer parameter usage from defaults and parameter names alone.

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 action (list) and resource (foreign key constraints for a table). However, it does not specify whether it lists all foreign keys (both referencing and referenced) or only those where the table is the referenced table, leaving some ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like list_indexes and describe_table, but not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an existing connection or table, or when to prefer list_foreign_keys over describe_table or other listing tools.

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