get_parameter

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (V$PARAMETER) and the shape of returned fields, which implicitly signals a read-only catalog query, but it never explicitly states read-only semantics, permission requirements, or result-set size expectations.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the optional filtering detail. Nothing in the text is redundant boilerplate.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned columns, which is the main gap an absent output schema would otherwise leave. Minor omissions (read-only confirmation, row-volume expectations) keep it short of perfect.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the LIKE pattern, case-insensitivity, and % wildcard. The description restates the same facts rather than adding syntax, escaping rules, or edge-case behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Return Oracle initialization parameters from V$PARAMETER') and enumerates the returned attributes (type, value, default/modified flags, modifiability), which cleanly separates it from sibling info tools like get_instance_info or get_database_info. An agent can identify the exact data domain without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description conveys that omitting the pattern lists all parameters and supplying one filters, which covers the two calling modes. It never explains when to prefer this tool over adjacent instance/database introspection tools, so guidance stops at the implicit level.

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