Run Db Query

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

The description is transparent about the tool being able to execute writes and DDL, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It does not hide the potentially destructive nature, though it could mention more about side effects or safety.

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 brief and to the point, but the phrase 'real protocol driver, not a shell' is slightly confusing and could be simplified. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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 that this is a potentially destructive tool that executes arbitrary commands, the description lacks important context such as expected output, required request shape, or risks. The annotations provide a warning, but the description alone is incomplete.

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 very low (20%). The description does not explain key parameters like sql, component, schema, env, or region. Only requestBody has a generic description, leaving most parameter semantics unclear.

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 that the tool executes arbitrary database commands, including writes and DDL, and distinguishes it from a shell. However, the phrase 'real protocol driver, not a shell' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 gives a hint about Redis and MongoDB command syntax but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related DB tools like getDbSchema or getDbCredentials. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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