Run a query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that write queries will actually write to the real datasource, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention auth/permission requirements, error behavior, or whether execution is synchronous, providing only partial transparency for a side-effect-capable tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The sentence about real datasource/writes is highly valuable and front-loaded appropriately. Could arguably add a bit more but is efficient as written.

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 side-effect-capable execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does surface the most critical risk (writes to real datasource) but omits behavioral details like whether it returns rows, response format, or any success/failure signals. Given the criticality of this tool's side effects, more completeness would be warranted for a higher score.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema (actionId provenance from appsmith_list_queries; viewMode purpose). The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it executes an existing query/API by action id and returns the result. The verb 'Executes' plus the resource 'existing query/API' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like appsmith_create_query or appsmith_update_query, though it doesn't explicitly name read vs write alternatives.

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 notes 'This runs against the real datasource — a write query will write,' which gives important cautionary context about side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like appsmith_api_request, nor does it mention required prerequisites (e.g., running appsmith_list_queries first, though schema hints at this via actionId description).

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