introspect_db

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — queries only the information schema/catalog; never reads table data,' addresses data privacy ('database URL is used by this local process only and is never sent to Sqemo servers'), and notes the Pro plan requirement. This goes beyond a basic purpose statement.

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 three sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then add safety and authentication details. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, privacy, and access requirements. The main missing piece is the return value or confirmation behavior after the import, but the complexity is moderate and the schema descriptions fill in parameter details, so it is reasonably 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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (url, source, dbSchema), covering the connection URL, target ERD selection, and schema defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, it meets the baseline of 3. The 'full replace' behavior is a tool-level trait, not a parameter semantic.

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 tool imports the schema of a live PostgreSQL/MySQL database into an existing ERD, with the specific behavior 'full replace, project id preserved.' This distinguishes it from sibling import tools like import_sql or import_dbml, which work with file formats rather than live database introspection.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to introspect a live database schema into an existing ERD. It mentions prerequisites (Pro plan, login) and the read-only nature, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like import_sql/import_dbml, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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