execute_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the tool is read-only and enforces this even if configurations are incorrect, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not disclose other traits like error handling or response format, but the read-only guarantee is well-communicated.

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: two sentences and a parameter list. The main sentence is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core functionality and safety guarantee. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, allowed statements, and limit constraint. However, it does not mention default behavior when limit is unspecified, pagination, or error handling (e.g., invalid SQL). Given the parameter count and no output schema, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides some clarification: 'sql: SELECT 语句' and 'limit: 自定义结果行数限制（≤1000）' add value by specifying that sql must be a SELECT statement and limit has a maximum of 1000. However, 'database' and 'params' are only named without additional explanation, leaving gaps.

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 it executes read-only SELECT/SHOW/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN queries, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_query that likely allow writes. The verb '执行' and resource '只读SELECT/SHOW/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN' provide a specific, actionable purpose.

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 specifies the SQL statements allowed (SELECT/SHOW/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN) and implies read-only usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like execute_query for writes, but the context of sibling tools and the read-only emphasis provide sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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