get_sql_file_allowed_dirs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, and the description states the subject (directories allowed for execute_sql_file). However, it does not explicitly disclose that it has no side effects, returns a list of paths, or how the allowed directories are determined (configuration, environment). This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 that states the verb and object efficiently with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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 low complexity (0 params) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It tells the agent exactly what information is retrieved. Minor gaps, such as what an empty result means or how directories are configured, are not essential given the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty properties). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. It implicitly communicates that the tool requires no arguments, which is correct.

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 a specific verb ('获取' / get) and a precise resource ('execute_sql_file 允许读取的 SQL 文件目录' / the SQL file directories execute_sql_file is allowed to read). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by tying the operation to execute_sql_file's permitted paths, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to know which directories execute_sql_file can read from. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences (e.g., checking before executing a SQL file). None of the sibling tools overlap, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not exemplary.

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