nebula_execute_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the optional return artifacts (graph, analysis, charts) and reinforcing the read-only nature ('approved read-only'). This aligns with annotations and provides additional context about output variety.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the optional outputs. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to agent comprehension.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is far too sparse for a 7-parameter tool. It omits critical context like what 'approved' means, the meaning of graph/max_rows/render_mode, and how the include_* flags map to return types. An agent would need to inspect the schema and still lack semantic guidance, making the tool risky to invoke correctly.

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?

With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls entirely on the description, but it fails to explain any parameter. It vaguely hints at include_graph/include_charts/include_analysis through the mention of return types, but gives no guidance on the 'statement', 'graph', 'max_rows', or 'render_mode' fields. This is inadequate for a tool with a required statement parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and a clear resource ('one approved read-only GQL statement') and enumerates the possible return types (table, graph, analysis, charts). This distinguishes it from siblings like nebula_execute_mutation (which is write-oriented) and nebula_validate_gql (which validates rather than executes).

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 this tool is for executing approved read-only queries, which clearly separates it from mutation and validation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over nebula_validate_gql or reference sibling alternatives by name, so there's minor room for ambiguity.

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