Query database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that SELECT returns rows as JSON and DDL/DML returns change info, and notes the server uses the same file, which implies side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly warn that DDL/DML is destructive or irreversible, nor mention error handling or permission requirements. For a tool that executes arbitrary SQL, this is a notable gap.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The main action and key behaviors are front-loaded, and the context about the server is useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is complex (arbitrary SQL execution) with no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter descriptions. The description covers the purpose and return behavior but omits critical operational details: potential for destructive writes, error handling, validation, and parameter specifics. An agent lacks enough information to use it safely and correctly in all cases.

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 compensate. It implies that 'app' refers to the app identifier (via the path <app>/data.sqlite) and 'sql' is the SQL statement, but it doesn't provide format, constraints, or examples. The explanation is minimal and doesn't help an agent know how to construct valid values beyond the obvious.

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?

States a specific verb (Run SQL) and resource (app's built-in SQLite database at <app>/data.sqlite). It clearly distinguishes from siblings since no other tool in the list executes SQL. The description is unambiguous about the tool's function.

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?

Gives context that the database is the app's built-in one and that the server uses the same file, implying this is the correct way to interact with the DB. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other data operations, though no sibling tool covers SQL.

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