suggest_joins

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

Discloses use of FK graph and heuristic matching, and ordering by confidence, which are behavioral traits. However, no annotations exist, so the description should cover more (e.g., behavior on no results, prerequisites). The existing context is useful but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequate for a suggestion tool with an output schema, but lacks parameter details and behavioral completeness given 0% schema coverage and no annotations.

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%, but the description only mentions table name format, not explaining 'source', 'max_hops', or parameter purposes. This provides minimal added meaning beyond parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states the tool suggests join paths using FK graph and heuristic column matching, with results ordered by descending confidence and table names format. This distinguishes it from similar siblings like 'find_direct_joins' by specifying broader methodology.

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 implies use when needing join path suggestions between two tables, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'find_direct_joins' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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