Compare Schemas

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'bounded' but does not explain what that means (e.g., limits on differences or tables). No info on required permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 very concise (one sentence, 12 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, given the complexity of 6 parameters, it may be too minimal.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It omits details about the 'bounded' nature, output format, and how parameters influence comparison, making it incomplete.

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 provides no details on the 6 parameters (profile, maxTables, leftSchema, rightSchema, tablePattern, compareCommonTables). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails entirely.

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 compares two schemas by table list and per-table metadata differences, which distinguishes it from siblings like ob_compare_tables (table-level) and ob_compare_metadata_snapshots (snapshot-level).

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 when to use (compare schemas at table/metadata level) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like ob_compare_tables or ob_compare_metadata_snapshots.

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