schema_foreign_keys

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'incoming + outgoing' directionality, but lacks details on whether this is a read-only operation, required permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but that's not stated.

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 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it instantly understandable. There is no redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context, such as the return format, pagination behavior, or the effect of omitting the 'table' parameter. Currently, it lacks completeness for a tool with three parameters and no structured output description.

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 coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters documented in the schema). The description adds 'incoming + outgoing', which echoes the enum values of the 'direction' parameter, but does not provide additional meaning or usage context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List') and resource ('foreign key relationships') and clarifies scope ('database or specific table') and directionality ('incoming + outgoing'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like schema_tables or schema_relationships.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the purpose implies its use for exploring foreign key constraints. The sibling tools list suggests alternative schema introspection tools, but no direct comparison is made.

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