qlty_negativeValues

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the 'persist' parameter's effect (materializes as volatile table) but does not mention permissions, performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only. For a data analysis tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 three short sentences with clear line breaks for parameters. It front-loads the primary purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (no output schema, simple parameters), the description covers the purpose and all parameters. It could mention that scanning a large table might be resource-intensive, but it's not essential. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter explanations already present in the schema (e.g., 'database_name - Name of the database (optional...)'). It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Get the column names that have negative values in a table.' This specific verb+resource makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like qlty_missingValues or qlty_distinctCategories.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit context for choosing this over similar qlty_* tools.

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