run_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that queries default to read-only and requires explicit flags for mutation or destruction. This covers the most important safety aspect, though it lacks details on timeouts, error handling, or response format.

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 consists of three concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information (purpose, default mode, flags for extended use) without redundancy or wordiness.

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 (single parameter, output schema exists), the description addresses key behavioral controls (read-only default, write/drop flags). It does not cover potential risks or limits, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only says 'SQL queries' which is minimal and does not add constraints like syntax, length limits, or examples. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little extra value beyond the schema definition.

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 'Execute SQL queries in ClickHouse,' specifying both the action (execute) and the resource (ClickHouse SQL queries). It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_databases, list_tables) which are listing-oriented, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 explicit guidance on when to use write and destructive operations via environment variables (CLICKHOUSE_ALLOW_WRITE_ACCESS and CLICKHOUSE_ALLOW_DROP), setting this apart from the default read-only mode. Although it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, the context is clear for typical query execution.

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