Qingflow Canonical Query Rows

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It states the return type (query handles and resource links), but does not disclose pagination, error handling, or other behaviors. Given annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, which is concise but too brief for a complex tool. Important details about parameters and usage are omitted, making it insufficiently informative.

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 complexity (2 parameters, nested schema, output schema, multiple siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the canonical DSL, parameter roles, pagination, or any usage context.

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 description provides no explanation of the parameters (plan_id, query object) despite 0% schema description coverage. The complex nested query object with many subfields is left entirely undocumented, which is a significant gap.

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 queries rows using the canonical DSL and returns query handles plus resource links. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the DSL and return type, but does not explicitly differentiate from other query tools like qf.query.aggregate.

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 (e.g., qf.query.aggregate, qf.query.record). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or selection criteria.

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