execute_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety disclosure burden. It clearly states 'read-only', which is a critical behavioral trait, and also discloses the return format (rows as JSON) and the single-statement limitation. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover potential edge cases like query timeouts or result size limits.

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 three concise sentences, each adding essential information: what it does, the return format, and a key constraint. No filler or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior: allowed query types, read-only nature, return format, and single-statement restriction. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the allowed statement list provides sufficient context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description implies the 'query' parameter contains the SQL text and constrains it to the allowed statement types. However, it does not provide examples or elaborate on parameter syntax, leaving some room for interpretation. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, but the description adds only partial value beyond the schema.

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 SQL queries with a specific set of read-only statement types (SELECT / SHOW / DESCRIBE / EXPLAIN / WITH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schema_info and get_table_sample, which likely provide metadata and sample data rather than arbitrary SQL.

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 allowed statement types and the 'single statements only' constraint, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. While it does not mention alternatives by name, the listing of allowed query types implies when it is appropriate and excludes mutations and multi-statement queries.

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