get_connection_schema

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by revealing that the schema is cached, implying possible staleness or emptiness, and by stating the prerequisite to refresh when needed. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no filler. It leads with the core functionality, then gives the intended use case, then provides the fallback instruction. 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?

For a simple, read-only, single-parameter tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to call it, and what to do when the cache is empty. Given the annotations and complete schema, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema fully documents connection_id with a UUID format and a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does reinforce the connection context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and identifies the exact resource ('schema em cache de uma conexão') with its contents ('tabelas, colunas, tipos'). It clearly differentiates this cached-schema retrieval from related tools like refresh_connection_schema by explicitly referring to cache and cache-empty fallback.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use antes de criar db_config') and gives a concrete condition for using an alternative ('Se o cache estiver vazio, use refresh_connection_schema primeiro'). This provides clear decision guidance without leaving it to inference.

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