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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains naming prefix and return format but does not mention side effects, error handling, or permissions. For a simple creation tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose statement, argument description, example, return type. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the main action.

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 create tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains input, behavior, and output. Could mention constraints like uniqueness or permissions, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It defines 'name' as a suffix without prefix and provides an example that clarifies usage, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new sandbox database for the current session, specifying the naming convention with prefix. It is distinct from sibling tools like show_databases and execute_sql.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to create a sandbox database) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context of siblings implies it is for setup, not for querying or listing.

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

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

The description states the tool creates a stage and returns a dict, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., persistence), permissions needed, behavior on duplicates, or connection requirements. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise, structured in a readable Args/Returns format, and includes only necessary information. It could be slightly more efficient by removing the 'Returns' 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?

The description lacks important context about output schema details (though not required if output schema exists), behavioral guarantees, and error conditions. For a creation tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations and a URL example, which adds basic meaning beyond the schema. However, details like valid URL formats or constraints are missing.

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 clearly states the action is 'Create' and the resource is 'Databend stage', which is distinct from siblings like show_stages. However, it lacks context on what a stage represents, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_stages or execute_sql. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites or scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'safe operation' and mentions the return type (dictionary with query results or error info). However, it does not specify the structure of the returned dictionary (e.g., column metadata), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

Very concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words, 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?

Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is somewhat complete: it covers purpose, safety, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks detail on the return value's contents (e.g., what 'query results' means for a describe operation).

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 0%, so description must add value. It provides brief descriptions for both parameters ('table: The table name', 'database: The database name'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types. Descriptions are terse but adequate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Describe a Databend table', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'show_tables' (lists tables) and 'execute_sql' (runs queries), making the tool's purpose clear.

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?

Notes it is a 'safe operation, not affected by MCP safe mode', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

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 discloses safe mode behavior, its default restriction of write operations, and how to disable it. It also mentions return format (list of dicts with results/errors). However, it does not detail error handling or transaction behavior, which is notable for a mutating tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a clear summary line, followed by safe mode details, then Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (multi-query execution, safe mode). The description covers safe mode and return format. Since output schema exists, return value explanation is not required, but it's provided. Missing details like sequential execution or transaction borders, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage (schema only has 'title'), the description adds meaningful detail: 'List of SQL query strings to execute'. This explains the array contents beyond the schema's type and title, meeting the need for parameter clarity.

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 clearly states the tool executes multiple SQL queries against a Databend database, with a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('multiple SQL queries'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'execute_sql' by specifying 'multiple' and mentions safe mode protection, adding context beyond the name.

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 explains safe mode and how to disable it, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_sql' for single queries. No when-not or when-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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

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

With no annotations, description carries burden. Details safe mode behavior, sandbox restrictions, and return type. Does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects beyond write restrictions.

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?

Well-structured: main purpose first, then safety rules, then Args/Returns. Could be slightly more concise but is informative and front-loaded.

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 presence of output schema (not shown), description doesn't need to explain returns. Covers safety and usage adequately for a single-parameter tool with moderate complexity.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining the 'sql' parameter as a query string and adding safe mode context. No format constraints needed for a simple string.

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?

Clearly states it executes SQL queries against a Databend database. Distinguishes from siblings like execute_multi_sql and read-only tools like show_databases.

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?

Provides safety rules and sandbox restrictions for write operations, and references get_session_sandbox_prefix(). Lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative tools like execute_multi_sql.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states that enforcement of the prefix is by code, not just guidelines, and mentions the return type (dictionary with session_id and prefix). For a simple getter, this is sufficient behavioral transparency.

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 concise, with only three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, adds context with the enforcement note, and ends with the return format. Every sentence is earned.

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's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is complete. It explains the prefix's role and what the tool returns, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the output's purpose. No parameter information is needed beyond the schema, which is already fully covered.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the session's sandbox prefix for writable objects. It defines the resource and verb precisely, and the explanation of its role in write operations distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_databases or create_session_sandbox_database.

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 implies when to use the tool: before any write operations, as it provides the required prefix. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context from sibling tools (e.g., create_session_sandbox_database) makes the usage clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects well: it returns a dictionary of sandbox databases, notes they are owned by the current session, and highlights their modifiability. It omits potential permission requirements or performance implications, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering action, context, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and a simple listing function, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the scope, and the return type. The presence of an output schema further covers return structure, and the description adds key context about modifiability.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the scope ('owned by current session') and return type, which provides value beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states that the tool lists sandbox databases owned by the current session. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'show_databases' by specifying 'sandbox' and 'owned by current session', making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 states that only these databases can be modified, implying the tool should be used when the agent needs to identify modifiable databases. While it doesn't directly contrast with siblings like 'show_databases', the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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

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 discloses the tool is safe and returns a dictionary of results or error info. However, it lacks details about potential failure modes, rate limits, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 extremely concise, using just a few lines to cover purpose, arguments, and return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what it does, how to call it, and what to expect back. It is complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: stage_name (with @ prefix) and path (optional). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, enabling correct invocation without needing external context.

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 clearly states the tool lists files in a Databend stage, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in a Databend stage'). It distinguishes from siblings like show_stages (which lists stages) and execute_sql (which runs queries), so an agent can easily understand its purpose.

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 states the operation is safe and unaffected by MCP safe mode, and notes the @ prefix for the stage name. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions safety and safe mode immunity, which adds value. However, it does not detail return format or other behaviors, leaving some gaps for a simple list operation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward list operation, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's function and a key behavioral note (safe mode immunity). It is complete for its simplicity.

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 has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies as no additional meaning is required beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists available Databend connections, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_databases or show_tables.

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 provides context that the operation is safe and unaffected by MCP safe mode, implying it can be used even when safe mode is active. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Despite no annotations, the description adds behavioral context by noting it's a safe operation unaffected by MCP safe mode. This helps the agent understand constraints beyond the basic list action.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and additional safety information.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. It states the purpose and a key behavioral trait, though the return format is not described.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds no parameter details. However, schema coverage is 100% and the absence of parameters is clear, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the tool lists available Databend databases, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like show_tables and show_stages, which list different resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the simple action, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It mentions 'safe operation' and not being affected by MCP safe mode, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose other traits like side effects, idempotency, or performance implications. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 concise, with two sentences plus structured 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every element serves a purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, parameter explanation with example, and return type. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the filter parameter with an example ('name like 'add%''), which adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition. This is helpful for an AI agent to understand how to construct the filter string.

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 clearly states 'List available Databend functions', specifying the resource (functions) and action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like show_databases or show_tables by focusing on functions. The addition of 'safe operation, not affected by MCP safe mode' provides extra context, though the kind of functions (system vs. user-defined) is not specified.

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 implies when to use this tool via 'safe operation' and 'not affected by MCP safe mode', hinting that other tools may be unsafe in certain modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling differentiation is provided beyond the resource type.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It mentions safety and safe mode exemption, which is helpful, but it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of stage names with details) or any limitations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and safety, but could mention what details are returned (e.g., names only).

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info, earning a baseline of 4.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'available Databend stages', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_databases and show_tables by specifying 'stages'.

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 notes it is a safe operation not affected by MCP safe mode, offering context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_stage or list_stage_files, though the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

Describes it as safe and provides return type (dictionary with results/errors), but with no annotations, more behavioral traits (e.g., no side effects, performance) could be disclosed. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, includes Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is earned, no redundancy.

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 listing tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, description fully covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. Sibling context is clear.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description adds value: explains database as name and filter with example. Clear and useful, though filter syntax could be more precise.

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?

Clearly states 'List available Databend tables in a database', specifying verb, resource, and context. Distinguishes from siblings like show_databases and describe_table.

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?

Mentions it's a safe operation not affected by safe mode, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Usage is implied by purpose, but no exclusion guidance for tools like execute_sql.

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