sql_Retrieve_Cluster_Queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the tool's behavior: it retrieves queries and performance metrics, categorizes them by thresholds from a config file, and outputs complete SQL text and categories. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but 'retrieve' implies read-only. The description adds transparency about the categorization and thresholds, which is valuable.

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 well-structured with bold headings and bullet points, making it scannable. However, it is quite lengthy with multiple sections (capabilities, strategies, metrics, categorization, workflow, output) that could be condensed. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the length reduces conciseness.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the output includes: complete SQL text, performance metrics, user/application context, cluster membership, and performance categories. It also covers the categorization logic, selection strategies, and workflow, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain parameters. It implicitly defines cluster_ids by referencing 'selected clusters', explicitly lists all possible metric values with their meanings in 'AVAILABLE METRICS FOR SORTING', and explains limit_per_cluster by referring to a config file default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with 'RETRIEVE ACTUAL SQL QUERIES FROM SPECIFIC CLUSTERS FOR PATTERN ANALYSIS', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly states the tool extracts SQL query text and performance metrics for pattern analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sql_Analyze_Cluster_Stats by indicating it moves from cluster-level to query-level analysis.

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 provides a 'TYPICAL OPTIMIZATION WORKFLOW' that advises starting with clusters from sql_Analyze_Cluster_Stats, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It also lists query selection strategies and available metrics for sorting, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools beyond the workflow.

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