build_select

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: names are validated, joins are inferred from foreign keys, bridge tables are added automatically, aliases are assigned, and GROUP BY is derived. It also reiterates that nothing is executed, reinforcing the safety profile.

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 dense but well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by compact parameter examples. Every line adds useful information, and the front-loaded definition makes the tool's behavior immediately clear.

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 nine parameters and no output schema, the description states the return contract ('Returns SQL text only') and covers most parameter semantics. It is slightly incomplete because `distinct` and `connection` are not addressed, though their schema defaults and titles offer some self-evident meaning.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting tables, columns, aggregates, filters, order_by, top, and join_type with concrete examples and rules. However, it does not explain the `distinct` or `connection` parameters, leaving two of nine parameters without added semantic context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a SELECT from the cached schema,' and immediately clarifies scope with 'Returns SQL text only; nothing is executed.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling builders like build_create_table, build_procedure, and build_view, as well as from run_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?

It provides clear context: use this when you need a SELECT generated from the cached schema and want SQL text rather than execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, but the 'nothing is executed' statement effectively separates it from query-execution tools.

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