get_schema

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses caching behavior and the availability of forceRefresh to get latest data, and it notes user-accessible scope. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss permissions, but the wording '获取' strongly implies a non-mutating metadata 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and metadata contents, then adds usage guidance and caching behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 introspection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what metadata is returned, when to use it, and how caching behaves. The main gap is not explaining the return format or explicitly routing between similar schema-related tools, but this is minor given the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the forceRefresh parameter is already fully described in the schema with default and effect. The description adds context by mentioning caching, which explains why forceRefresh exists, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves database structure metadata including tables, columns, data types, primary keys, and indexes, scoped to user-accessible schemas. It is a specific verb+resource pair and is easy to distinguish from query-execution tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_table_info or get_global_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?

The description gives a clear usage context: call before executing queries to understand the database structure. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or which alternative tool to pick when only a single table's info is needed, which would strengthen routing among the many sibling tools.

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