Find Related Tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions finding relationships via FK and naming but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the table is not found. The description lacks depth on the 'conservative naming' approach.

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, which is too short for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It is under-specified, leaving critical details missing. While concise, it sacrifices necessary 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage), the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain key concepts like 'conservative naming-based relationships', the meaning of depth/limit, or how schema and profile parameters affect results.

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 0% and the description provides no information about the five parameters (table, depth, limit, schema, profile). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 'find', the resource 'related tables for an OceanBase table', and the method using foreign-key and naming-based relationships. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ob_get_constraints or ob_describe_table by specifying the scope of finding relationships beyond just constraints.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like ob_get_constraints or ob_generate_er_diagram, nor does it exclude scenarios where it should not be used.

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