describe_plsql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states 'Read-only' and enumerates the return content, which is useful, but omits permissions, error behavior (e.g., object not found, invalid type), and any caveats about source retrieval.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return payload, ending with the safety trait. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only describe tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential contract: what it returns and that it is non-mutating. It could do more to mention error handling or permissions, but it is close to complete.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for name, type, and schema (including the default behavior). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('PL/SQL object'), and enumerates the return payload (arguments and source code). However, it does not name or contrast with the closest siblings such as describe_table, get_ddl, or list_procedures, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives no prerequisites or alternative conditions; it only implies usage by describing the action, leaving the agent to infer that this is the right call when source code and signature are needed.

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