Get Database Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the conditional behavior (list all vs. column details), but much of that is already present in the input schema's table parameter description. It doesn't add information about return format, site resolution (env var fallback), or potential edge cases, making this a baseline score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by concise conditional behavior. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity, two parameters, and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers the main behavior. The only gap is the absence of return format details, but with no output schema, this is not critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description largely restates the table parameter behavior ('With a table name, shows column details') without adding new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description adds minimal value over the structured schema.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('the schema of the WordPress database'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mysql_query (queries) and wp_site_info (site metadata). It also communicates two distinct behaviors based on the table parameter, reinforcing its purpose.

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 explains when to use each mode: without a table name, list all tables; with a table name, show column details. This provides clear context for using the tool effectively, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to sibling tools. That nuance keeps it at 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.