get_schema

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool is non-destructive ('Does not require loading') and returns a sql_hint with JOIN guidance. It does not disclose failure modes or exact return format, but is reasonably transparent for a schema inspection tool.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, non-destructive nature, usage guidance, and return value description.

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 description covers key aspects: what it does, that it doesn't load, usage, and return. With an output schema present (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., recording must exist), but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%; the description does not explain the parameters 'file' and 'topic' beyond the tool's general purpose. It mentions 'topic names' but does not clarify how the topic parameter is used. Minimal added value over the 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 clearly states the tool inspects SQL schema for a recording, listing topics, tables, columns, and types. The verb 'Inspect' and specific details distinguish it from sibling tools like load_recording and query.

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 says 'Use this to plan SQL queries before running them,' giving clear guidance on when to use. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling tools provide context.

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