get_database_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral traits, such as what happens if the ID does not exist or if the database is empty. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, concise phrase with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's purpose in minimal space.

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 tool has one parameter with full schema description and read-only annotations, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks information about the return format or structure, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'avID' described in the schema as '思源块、文档、笔记本或数据库 ID' (Siyuan block, document, notebook, or database ID). The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 '获取数据库字段定义' translates to 'get database field definitions', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly states the tool retrieves field definitions for a database. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_database' which might retrieve the entire database object, leading to potential ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as 'get_database', 'create_database', or other database-related operations. The description does not provide context about prerequisites or when it is appropriate to call this tool.

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