get_query_plan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' suggests read-only, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, cost, or permissions. For a tool that analyzes queries, the lack of disclosure on whether it runs the query or just plans is a gap.

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 with only two lines of main text plus structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor reduction for including redundant 'Returns: Query execution plan' since output schema exists.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and existence of output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would make it fully self-contained for an agent.

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 a brief explanation for the parameter ('SQL query to analyze'), which adds some meaning beyond the schema's title-only field. However, it does not specify format constraints or examples.

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: 'Get the execution plan for a query to understand performance.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('execution plan for a query'), distinguishing it from siblings like execute_sql_query which runs the query itself.

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 performance understanding but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks the precision needed to differentiate from similar tools.

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