get_db_context_snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation by naming return items, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, performance, or authorization needs. It adds some value beyond the name by detailing outputs, but not enough to fully compensate for missing annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Returns database-level context') followed by a colon and a succinct list of returned items. Every part is necessary and clearly communicates the tool's output.

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 output schema, the description lists all significant return fields, making it relatively complete for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not mention the format of the returned data (e.g., JSON object) or any edge cases (e.g., when context is unavailable). It provides sufficient information for most scenarios.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 returns 'database-level context' and lists specific items (coordinate system, EPSG code, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'database-level context' are specific and distinct from siblings like 'get_database_schema' which returns different information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_database_schema' or 'get_session_context'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and list of return items.

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