read_msty_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only read-only SELECT/WITH/PRAGMA statements are permitted, which tells the agent mutations are rejected. It does not mention the default limit behavior, permissions, or error/truncation semantics.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action before the query-value enumeration. Efficient with no filler, though the special-value list could be slightly tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a query tool with two parameters and no annotations, the omission of the limit parameter's meaning and default behavior leaves a meaningful gap.

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 explains the query parameter well by enumerating its special values, but the limit parameter (default 100) is entirely unmentioned in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Query the Studio workspace database'), which is clear and distinguishable from the other query tools (query_nexus, query_vibe_proxy) that target different systems. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 gives useful routing hints for the query parameter (stats for overview, tables for list, SQL for ad-hoc reads), which implies usage. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the sibling list/get tools (e.g. list_workspaces, get_studio_entity), leaving the choice to inference.

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