list_all_foreign_keys

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral context. It does not explain what information about each foreign key is returned (e.g., column names, referenced tables), nor does it mention any potential performance implications or ordering.

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, but it is too brief and fails to include important details. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices completeness.

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 lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool's behavior is not fully specified. Although an output schema exists, the description does not leverage or refer to it, leaving the agent uncertain about the return format and parameter details.

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 meaning of the 'source' and 'schema' parameters. The agent cannot determine what value to provide for 'source' (e.g., database name, connection string) from the description alone.

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 verb 'return', the resource 'foreign keys', and the scope 'in a schema'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or list_schemas, which return different objects.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or situations where a different tool (e.g., find_direct_joins) would be more appropriate.

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