superset_sqllab_execute_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that it 'runs a SQL query' and returns 'results or execution status for async queries', which hints at mutation (execution) and possible async behavior. However, it lacks critical details: whether it's read-only or modifies data, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'async queries' entail. For a tool that executes arbitrary SQL with no safety annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by implementation details and parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (SQL execution tool with potential data mutation), no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical context: no output details (beyond 'dictionary'), no error information, no async behavior explanation, and no safety warnings. It meets the bare minimum but leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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. It adds meaning by explaining 'database_id: ID of the database to query' and 'sql: SQL query to execute', which clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond their schema titles ('Database Id', 'Sql'). However, it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., SQL syntax, database ID sources) or constraints, so it's not a full 5.

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 a SQL query in SQL Lab' specifies the verb (execute) and resource (SQL query in SQL Lab). It distinguishes from siblings like 'superset_sqllab_format_sql' (which formats rather than executes) and 'superset_sqllab_estimate_query_cost' (which estimates rather than executes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication, database availability), when to choose it over other query tools like 'superset_database_validate_sql', or any constraints (e.g., query size limits, async vs sync). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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