eqs_describe_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses accepted input forms (content path or unique asset name), the uniqueness caveat, a KB source, and the output scope. The read-only nature is conveyed by 'Describe', though it is not stated explicitly.

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 compact and well-ordered: purpose first, then parameter semantics, KB pointer, and a concrete example. No filler; every sentence adds useful information for invocation.

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 single-parameter read/inspect tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it returns, how to identify the query, and an example. The only missing piece is explicit when-to-use guidance relative to EQS creation/modification siblings.

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 provides only a bare parameter title, but the description fully explains `query_path`: it may be a content path or a unique asset name, gives a concrete example value, and notes when simple names are allowed. This exceeds the schema's information.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Describe') with a clear resource ('an EQS query') and names the exact content returned (options, generator classes, tests). This distinguishes it from mutating EQS siblings such as eqs_add_test and eqs_create_query.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'describe' verb and by the sibling tool names, but the description never explicitly says 'use this to inspect an existing query, not to modify/create one'. It also provides no exclusions or alternative routing beyond the implicit distinction.

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