db_schema

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 states the tool lists database objects, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, 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: 'List tables, views, and indexes in the database.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (listing database objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or how it differs from siblings. It meets the basic requirement but has clear gaps.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (connection_id), the schema alone defines the parameter without explanation. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what connection_id is or how it's used, but since there's only one parameter and the schema is simple, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List tables, views, and indexes in the database.' It specifies the verb ('List') and the resources ('tables, views, and indexes'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like db_describe or db_relationships, which might have overlapping scopes.

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. With siblings such as db_describe (which might describe specific tables) and db_relationships (which might show table relationships), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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