ddev_db_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states the action ('Execute a SQL query') which implies both read and write operations are possible, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether queries can be destructive, transaction handling, error behavior, or result format. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 database query tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address important contextual information like what types of SQL queries are supported, whether it's read-only or can modify data, what authentication is required, how results are returned, or error handling. The description provides only the most basic functional statement without the necessary context for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, database, project_name) with their descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'SQL query' which is already covered by the schema's description of the 'query' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Execute a SQL query') and target resource ('on the DDEV database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential database-related siblings (none are listed among the provided sibling tools, but the description doesn't address this).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from other database interaction methods. The sibling tools are all DDEV-related but serve different purposes, yet the description doesn't help the agent understand this distinction.

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