db_inspect

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. It goes beyond the name by detailing exactly what data is returned (all tables, fields, record counts, recent records), implying a read-only inspection. This is useful context, though it doesn't explicitly note side-effect freedom or any potential performance implications, so it falls short of a 5.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds usage guidance and a comparison to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unneeded detail. It is 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 parameters and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it shows, and when to use it relative to a sibling. It is fully complete for a zero-parameter inspection tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description itself doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it doesn't add anything beyond that, which 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('查看' / view) and resource ('数据库表结构和内容概况'), enumerating what it includes (all tables, fields, record counts, recent records). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'index_status' by noting it is more detailed and shows complete table structure, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: '想看当前索引了哪些数据时用这个' (use this when you want to see which data is currently indexed). It also provides an alternative comparison, stating it is more detailed than 'index_status', which helps an agent choose between the two. This satisfies the 'when' and 'alternatives' criteria.

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