execute_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes SQL commands but doesn't clarify whether this includes read/write operations, permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., data modification), error handling, or transaction behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be destructive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' section is clear but could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it's slightly fragmented between the statement and parameter note.

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 the tool's potential complexity (executing arbitrary SQL), lack of annotations, and an output schema (which helps), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety, scope, or behavioral traits needed for proper use. However, the output schema mitigates some gaps by documenting return values.

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 description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('query') and indicates it's an 'SQL command.' However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't elaborate on syntax, supported SQL types, or constraints beyond what the basic schema provides. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail reduces it to 3.

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's purpose: 'Execute an SQL commands on the openGauss server.' It specifies the verb ('Execute') and resource ('SQL commands'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_table_definition or list_tables_in_current_schema, which are read-only queries versus this general execution tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that siblings like get_table_definition or list_tables_in_current_schema might be preferred for specific read operations, or that this tool can handle both read and write queries. There's no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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