swql_query

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description usefully adds what annotations do not: row capping, the exact return envelope, and the meaning of the truncated flag with remediation. It stops short of stating rate limits, auth requirements, or per-target behavior, but the added behavioral context is genuine.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the core constraint, then the return contract, then the Args block. Every element serves a purpose with little filler, though the return-envelope sentence is somewhat dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to define the return shape and truncation semantics. Combined with the parameter documentation and the read-only constraint, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only target-discovery and error behavior are left unstated.

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 the full burden, and it does document all four parameters: query as a SWQL SELECT, params as @name named parameters, target as a config name with a default fallback, and limit with its default of 1000. This is meaningful compensation, though it omits format details (e.g. how params values are bound or how target names are discovered).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: run a validated read-only SWQL SELECT, with the row-capped constraint and the SELECT-only rule. This clearly distinguishes it from write tools. It does not, however, distinguish it from siblings like swql_canned or swql_library, which are alternative query paths, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 read-only SELECT restriction and the note that state changes go through write tools imply when to use it, and the truncation advice ('narrow the query or raise the limit') gives actionable guidance. But there is no explicit comparison against the swql_canned/swql_library siblings for when a prebuilt query is preferable. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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