query_firewall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It covers key behaviors (blocking, requiring WHERE, logging) but does not detail side effects, persistence, or required permissions. Adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation-like tool.

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?

Description is short and to the point, with a bracketed qualifier. It is efficient but not highly structured (one sentence). No wasted words, but could be improved with bullet points or clearer phrasing.

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 no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose but lacks details on how rules are specified, what patterns are blocked, or the response format. Leaves some gaps for a new user.

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?

Input schema is empty (0 params, 100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's function, which is sufficient given no parameters to document. It clarifies what the tool does without relying on schema details.

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 the tool manages per-connection SQL rules with specific capabilities (blocking dangerous patterns, requiring WHERE, logging PII access). It distinguishes from siblings like query_sql or analyze_table. However, 'manage' is somewhat generic, leaving some ambiguity about exact actions.

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. The [ARCHITECT tier] hint is present but does not define context or exclusions. Lacks when-not-to-use or mentions of sibling tools like query_sql.

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