query_d1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and that writes and multi-statement payloads are rejected, which are the key behavioral traits. Additional details like authentication or rate limits are not mentioned, but the core safety profile is well communicated.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key restrictions. No fluff or redundant information.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and siblings focused on unrelated operations, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies allowed SQL types, read-only nature, and rejection of multi-statement/writes. Could optionally mention result format, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'db' and 'sql' are described in the input schema). The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Run' and resource 'local D1', and explicitly lists allowed SQL statement types (SELECT, WITH, EXPLAIN, PRAGMA). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools which are all about model/factory/migration operations, making purpose 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 clearly states the tool is for read-only SQL queries and explicitly notes that multi-statement payloads and writes are rejected. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for write operations, though the context of siblings makes that somewhat implicit.

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