pws_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the query runs against the 'loaded save' and 'results are capped', which are important traits not stated in annotations. It does not expose every nuance but goes beyond the structured data.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, constraints, and a key behavior (capping). Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description leaves out essential details such as how to supply parameters, the result format, error behavior, or the exact cap semantics (e.g., maxRows default/limits). It covers allowed SQL but not enough for an agent to confidently construct valid calls in varied scenarios.

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 compensate for missing parameter explanations. It only mentions 'parameterized' without detailing the parameters array or maxRows behavior, and it does not explain placeholder syntax or how values bind. The schema gives types/defaults but no semantics, and the description adds little beyond 'parameterized'.

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 runs a parameterized read-only SQL query against the loaded save, with explicit allowed SQL constructs (SELECT, WITH, safe schema PRAGMAs). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific data or actions.

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 implies usage for ad-hoc SQL queries by listing allowed statements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools or when it is inappropriate. There is no guidance on alternatives or exclusions beyond the SQL restriction, so it is clear but lacks explicit decision criteria.

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