explain_query

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

The description mentions the critical safety trait of not executing the query, but fails to disclose permissions required (e.g., SHOWPLAN privilege), potential error conditions, or return format details beyond what is in the parameter schema.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key behavior (no execution), with no extraneous words.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core function and safety aspect. However, it lacks details on return structure (e.g., summary format) and prerequisite checks, which could be improved.

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 100%, and each parameter's description adds value beyond type info: query specifies typical SQL types, environment gives examples, and includePlanXml explains default behavior and alternative output. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 generates an estimated execution plan (SHOWPLAN_XML) for SQL queries without executing them, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_data or describe_table.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., test_connection for connectivity, read_data for actual execution) or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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