explain_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a non-mutating analysis step, which is the key behavioral trait versus execute_query, but never states that the query is not actually executed, nor anything about permissions, cost, or safety. It adds partial behavioral signal only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause earns its place. It is arguably too terse for what it must convey, but it is not padded.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description says nothing about what the EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN result looks like (plan rows), nor that the query is only analyzed rather than run. For an analysis tool whose output the agent must interpret, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so both db_path and query are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format guidance, e.g. whether query may contain parameters or multiple statements. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('SQLite EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN analysis') with a stated purpose (optimize indexing). It is clearly distinct from list_tables and describe_table, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with execute_query, the closest sibling.

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 phrase 'to optimize indexing' implies the use case (query performance tuning), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over execute_query or what preconditions apply. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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