run_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool executes a query and returns results, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only (no side effects), nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate for a query tool but lacks explicit safety cues.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes structured Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. However, it repeats information (the second sentence mirrors the first paragraph) and could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 (3 parameters with a complex ref format) and the presence of a similar sibling 'run_query_to_csv', the description covers the basics but does not differentiate when to use which tool. It mentions the return type (QueryOut) but lacks context on output format or integration with other tools. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to make optimal choices among siblings.

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 must add meaning. It provides detailed format rules for the 'ref' parameter (hash starting with '@' and 64 characters, or branch name in 'username.name' format) and explains 'query' as a SQL query. 'Namespace' is only described as 'Optional namespace', which is minimal. Overall, it adds significant value beyond the schema, especially for 'ref', but could improve on 'namespace'.

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 executes a SQL SELECT query on the Bauplan data catalog and returns a QueryOut object. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the mention of returning a QueryOut object distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'run_query_to_csv', which likely outputs CSV.

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 'run_query_to_csv' or other data operations. It does not specify when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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