eqs_create_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral nuance: this call only creates the asset, and follow-up calls are needed to define its logic. However, it omits behavioral details like whether the asset is automatically saved (default true), whether overwrite=true will replace an existing asset, or any prerequisites (e.g., open project). The example is helpfully illustrative but not comprehensive.

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 two brief paragraphs plus a KB reference and a code example. It is front-loaded with the primary action, the workflow is explained in one sentence, and the example is compact. No wasted verbiage; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a creation operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which we haven't seen). The description gives the workflow and an example, but fails to explain the parameters beyond query_name, and doesn't mention defaults or behavior of optional parameters. It references a KB for overview, which helps, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to call this correctly without external lookup.

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 explain the parameters. It only shows query_name in an example, without describing its purpose or format. It completely ignores save, overwrite, and folder_path, which have defaults in the schema—but those defaults are not self-explanatory. For a 4-parameter tool, this is insufficient semantic guidance.

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 states a specific action: 'Create an Environment Query System (EQS) query asset' — a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from follow-up tools (eqs_add_generator, eqs_add_test) by explicitly naming them as subsequent steps, and from eqs_describe_query which is for inspection. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 explicitly instructs users to 'Use follow-up eqs_add_generator and eqs_add_test calls' to define behavior, establishing a clear workflow: create first, then configure. This is actionable guidance on when to use this tool and how it fits with siblings, even if it doesn't list negative cases. The KB reference adds further context.

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