query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions readonly mode but does not explain whether the tool is always read-only or if there are mutability contexts. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 very short (one sentence), making it concise. However, it omits important details like return format or behavior, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity of a SQL execution tool and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about error handling, return values, and constraints like maxRows behavior.

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 100%, meaning each parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds only generic context ('Execute SQL query'), which is already implied by the tool name and 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 executes SQL queries, specifically SELECT and SHOW, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases and describe_table. However, it does not explicitly rule out other SQL types like INSERT or UPDATE, leaving ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The mention of readonly mode is vague and does not clarify prerequisites or scenarios. Sibling tools like explain_query and list_databases offer simpler alternatives, but no comparison is provided.

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