nebula_validate_gql

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

The description explicitly discloses that the original statement is never executed, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by ruling out even read-side execution. It also surfaces optional EXPLAIN behavior, which helps set expectations for the run_explain parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, and the most important safety behavior is placed at the end for emphasis.

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?

The description is strong on safety and purpose, and the output schema plus annotations reduce the need for return-value detail. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, it leaves the 'graph' parameter unexplained and does not explicitly establish when to use validation versus execution.

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 carry the parameter-meaning burden. It does convey that 'statement' is the GQL being validated and hints at 'optional EXPLAIN' for run_explain, but it never explains the 'graph' parameter or specifies expected values for the validation dimensions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb, 'Validate,' and identifies the precise resource, 'YueShu 5.3 GQL,' along with concrete validation dimensions: placeholders, dialect residuals, policy, and optional EXPLAIN. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling execution-oriented tools such as nebula_execute_query.

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 statement 'This never executes the original statement' clearly implies a safe validation use case and separates this tool from execution tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when validation should be preferred over execution.

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