Plan ER Export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool avoids returning large inline HTML, which implies a file or output side effect, but it does not describe whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or if it creates/destroys any resources. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 concise, but it is also vague. It could be more informative without being verbose. The structure is acceptable for a brief description, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the output is (e.g., a command script, file paths), how to use the parameters, or any pre/post conditions. An agent would struggle to use this 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?

The input schema has 16 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. The tool description adds no explanation of parameters. For example, 'depth', 'strategy', 'chunkSize' are undefined. The agent must guess parameter meanings from names and enums, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 purpose: planning local ER HTML export commands for large OceanBase schemas, and distinguishes itself by noting it avoids returning large inline HTML. However, 'plan' is somewhat vague; it is unclear whether it generates commands, outputs files, or just prepares items. Nevertheless, it is specific enough to convey the core function.

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 its siblings (e.g., ob_generate_er_html, ob_generate_er_diagram). There is no indication of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The agent would have to infer usage context from the name and description alone.

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