analyze_database_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Analyze' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state that it won't modify anything, nor does it mention potential performance impacts of sampling data or usage on production environments. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 of about 15 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the analysis returns (e.g., a report, schema representation, or diagnostics). It does not. Given the tool has 3 parameters and covers multiple aspects of the schema, the description is incomplete. It also fails to mention any caveats like environment differences or performance considerations.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional sample data', which aligns with includeSamples and maxSampleRows, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides. It neither clarifies parameter formats nor explains edge cases.

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 verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'D1 database schema', listing specific aspects (tables, columns, indexes, relationships) and optional sample data. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_table_relationships by its broader scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage for general schema analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like validate_database_schema or suggest_schema_optimizations. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so using it is inferred rather than directed.

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