constellation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only metadata fetch but says nothing about cost, whether the graph is large, whether it covers all schemas or one, or what the returned structure looks like — and with no output schema, the word "graph" is never disambiguated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is lean and readable; the terseness here reflects missing content rather than wasted words.

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?

For a zero-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about the return value, and it leaves the central concept ("constellation graph") and its shape unexplained. An agent cannot predict what it will receive or how it differs from database_overview.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify, and the empty schema is unambiguous.

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 verb "Return" and the parenthetical "(tables, columns, indexes)" make the resource concrete, but "schema constellation graph" is undefined jargon and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like database_overview, list_tables, or describe_table. An agent can guess it returns schema metadata but not why it exists separately from those tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of database_overview/list_tables/describe_table, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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