get_dialect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return value, but does not indicate side effects, authentication needs, or that it is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic function.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it could add a few more words to improve clarity without becoming verbose, such as specifying that the source is a database connection name.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for such a simple tool. It fails to define the 'source' parameter adequately, and given the sibling tools, more context about when this tool is relevant would help. The description feels underdeveloped.

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%, yet the description does not clarify the 'source' parameter beyond the examples which are actually dialect values, not source identifiers. The meaning of 'source' remains ambiguous (e.g., source ID, name?), and the description adds minimal 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 returns the SQL dialect for a source, with specific examples like 'mssql' and 'snowflake'. The verb 'Return' and resource 'SQL dialect for a source' are precise, and the tool is well-distinguished from siblings like add_database or list_sources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_sources or get_stored_procedure. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the description.

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