get_erd_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the tool 'Returns' a summary, implying read-only behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, error scenarios, or access requirements. The mention of 'standard link status' adds some specific context but remains undefined.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and result. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple, with one well-documented parameter and a brief enumeration of return categories. While there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys the main output types ('entity/relationship/domain/word-list stats, standard link status'), though terms like 'stats' and 'standard link status' could be more explicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single 'source' parameter, including the exactly-one-of file/erdId constraint. The description adds no further parameter details, so the baseline score 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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('ERD summary') and enumerates the contents (stats, link status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools like list_entities or get_entity, which focus on individual components rather than an aggregate overview.

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 name and description imply it is the right choice for an ERD-level overview, but there is no direct comparison or exclusionary language, leaving usage inferred rather than stated.

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