db

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool performs read-only analysis, any side effects, permission requirements, or what it returns. The lack of any behavioral context makes this a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and lists the actions in a clear, scannable format. However, the brevity is more under-specification than effective conciseness, as it omits essential explanations while still being well-formed.

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 tool has three distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what schema, table_usage, and dead_tables do, what they return, or under what circumstances they should be invoked, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—for example, it does not elaborate on what each allowed action entails or how path and table interact.

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 states the tool performs 'Database analysis' and lists three specific actions, giving a general sense of its function. However, it lacks a clear verb+resource structure and does not explain what each action does, so it remains vague and does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool 'analyze'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor is there any explanation of when each action (schema, table_usage, dead_tables) should be applied. The description simply lists the actions without context or prerequisites.

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