export_dbml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output format. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or what happens with invalid sources. The behavior is largely implicit.

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?

A single, focused sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple export tool but lacks usage context and exploration of edge cases. Without an output schema, the phrase 'DBML text' hints at the return format, but it does not clarify the 'project' notion or how the source is selected. Basic but not fully complete.

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 schema description covers the single 'source' parameter thoroughly with an anyOf structure and per-variant descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the schema carries the semantic load. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Exports' with a clear resource 'the project as DBML text', which distinguishes it from siblings like export_sql and export_alter_sql. The format 'DBML text' is precise and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's output.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_sql or import_dbml. It simply states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its use case.

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