Generate Entity Diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the diagram is 'local' and 'entity-focused' but does not clarify what these mean in terms of side effects, permissions, or mutability. There is no contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output formats. While concise, it sacrifices important details that could be included without significant length increases. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the meaning of 'entity-focused', the scope of 'local', or what kind of ER diagram is generated. The minimalism leaves agents without sufficient context 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description only hints at three parameters (businessTerm, table, formats) and mentions optional HTML. It fails to explain the purpose or constraints of depth, title, schema, profile, maxTables, minConfidence, includeInferred, maxRelationships, and relationshipMode.

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 identifies the tool's action (generate an ER diagram) and key inputs (business term or table) and outputs (Mermaid, JSON, HTML). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the very similarly named sibling tool 'ob_generate_er_diagram', leading to potential confusion.

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 such as ob_generate_er_diagram or ob_generate_er_html. It also lacks information about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is most appropriate.

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