analyze-database

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 mentions analyzing and collecting information, which implies a read-only operation, but fails to detail aspects like performance impact, caching behavior (hinted by the 'force_refresh' parameter), error conditions, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of database analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'analyze' entails, what information is collected, the format of the results, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get-table-info.' This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'force_refresh' documented as 'Önbelleği yenileyip yeniden analiz et' (refresh cache and re-analyze). The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Veritabanı şemasını analiz et ve tablo bilgilerini topla' translates to 'Analyze the database schema and collect table information.' This specifies the verb (analyze/collect) and resource (database schema/table information). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-table-info,' which appears to serve a similar purpose, preventing a score of 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-table-info' or 'smart-query,' which might overlap in functionality. This lack of usage direction leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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