read_query

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the output_file feature and notes that files are written on the server's filesystem, which is important for remote deployments. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss error handling or authentication.

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 concise, with the purpose stated first. It includes two sentences plus a minor note, and every part adds value. The only flaw is an extra period after 'inline'.

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 lacks details about the return structure when output_file is not used. It mentions returning 'inline' but does not specify the format or content (e.g., rows, columns). Given there is no output schema, this information is crucial for correct usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema for output_file and output_format, explaining path resolution, environment variables, and format inference. For db, it adds no extra meaning.

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 explicitly states 'Execute a SELECT query or commands that return a ResultSet', which provides a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like write_query and analyze_query by focusing on read-only queries that produce a result set.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., write_query for modifications, analyze_query for explaining). The only instruction is to use set_session_db for default database, which is a side note, not a usage guideline for tool selection.

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