qlty_missingValues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens when no missing values exist. The return type is vaguely described as 'formatted response with query results + metadata', lacking specifics.

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 concise with two sentences plus a parameter list and return type. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the parameter descriptions are redundant with the schema, and the explanation could be slightly more structured without added length.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should fully specify behavior and return format. It does not clarify the format of returned column names (e.g., array, comma-separated) or handle edge cases like null database_name (allowed in schema). The return type 'formatted response' is too vague.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It repeats parameter names and labels (e.g., 'database_name - name of the database') which are already in the schema titles. No additional details like allowed values, defaults, or constraints are provided, adding minimal value.

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 retrieves column names with missing values. The verb 'Get' and resource 'column names having missing values' are specific. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'qlty_rowsWithMissingValues' by focusing on columns rather than rows, it does not explicitly differentiate from other qlty_* tools.

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 like 'qlty_rowsWithMissingValues' or 'qlty_columnSummary'. There is no explicit recommendation, prerequisites, or exclusions stated. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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