get_execution_plan

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the query is prepared but not executed (safe, non-destructive) and returns a plan string. It gives an example output format. While it doesn't cover authorization or rate limits, it is transparent about the operation's safety and output.

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 very concise: two sentences plus short parameter notes. It front-loads the purpose and usefulness, then adds parameter details. No wasted words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage context, safety, parameter constraints, and output format. An agent can confidently use this tool without additional info.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'database' is a key from list_databases and 'sql' must be a SELECT statement (not DML). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare type definitions.

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 returns the execution plan for a SELECT query, specifying that it shows which indexes Firebird will use. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_query (which executes queries) and analyze_missing_indexes (which suggests missing indexes).

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 explains when to use the tool (to spot full table scans before expensive queries) and provides context that the query is not executed, making it safe. It also specifies that sql must be a SELECT statement, not DML, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools.

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