query_peoplesoft_db

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 does convey the query mechanics (SQLite '?' placeholders not Oracle-style), which is useful. However, it gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies data, what the return structure looks like, or error handling behavior. It also names helper functions (list_tables, describe_table) as if they're usable within this tool, which could be confusing about actual callable behavior.

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 reasonably structured with numbered steps and clear sections (AVAILABLE RESOURCES, then param docs). However, it's somewhat verbose—the AVAILABLE RESOURCES section largely repeats information from the sibling tool names already visible, and the helper-function references (list_tables(), describe_table()) are ambiguous since those are sibling tools, not necessarily callable functions. The front-loaded workflow section is the strongest part; the redundancy at the end is padding.

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 raw SQL query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description handles the critical workflow (discover→describe→query) and SQLite-specific syntax well. However, it lacks detail on output format (return dictionary structure), error behavior, and safety profile. The mention of semantic alternative tools helps agents choose the right path but the behavioral gaps keep this from being fully complete.

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 does explain the sql_query parameter with a SQL example (SELECT * FROM PROJECT WHERE BUSINESS_UNIT = ?) and mentions the parameters parameter as 'List of query parameters (optional)'. However, this is minimal—it doesn't explain how the parameters list maps to the ? placeholders in detail, whether they support type conversion, or the expected format of the return dictionary. It adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 queries the local SQLite database directly with a specific verb+resource ('Query... database directly'). It doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like list_projects or get_project_contracts, but it frames itself as a raw/low-level access layer while the siblings are semantic accessors, which is reasonable differentiation.

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?

Excellent usage guidance. The description provides a numbered workflow: discover tables first, describe structure second, then query. It explicitly names alternative tools (list_tables, describe_table, and the semantic accessors like list_projects) and frames the raw query tool as appropriate for low-level access, distinguishing when to use it versus siblings.

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