Execute Query

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explicitly says read-only, warns that rows are truncated if large, and discloses CUBRID dialect constraints such as LIMIT/OFFSET preference, no RETURNING, and possible collection types. This goes beyond what the structured schema provides.

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 compact: one front-loaded sentence stating behavior, followed by a concise block of CUBRID caveats. Every sentence adds practical information and there is no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers read-only semantics, truncation, and dialect quirks. It is slightly incomplete because the connection parameter and the exact truncation threshold are left undefined, and it does not route the agent between query execution and query explanation.

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 adds meaningful dialect detail for the sql parameter, but it does not explain the connection parameter or how truncation interacts with returned rows. The compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: execute a read-only SQL statement and return rows. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling metadata and explain utilities, even though no sibling names are mentioned.

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 the tool is for read-only, free-form SQL querying and provides CUBRID-specific syntax guidance, but it never states when to prefer this over explain_query or the metadata tools. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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