analyze_sql_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the supported formats and the validation/summarization purpose, which strongly implies a read-only analysis operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, describe validation behavior, or mention error handling.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It states the action and accepted input formats immediately.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the operation, accepted file formats, and source context. The main remaining gap is that it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or clarify path resolution expectations, though these are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 compensate for the bare 'path' parameter. It does so by explaining that the path refers to a local CSV or JSON metadata export from check.sql, giving the agent clear meaning beyond the schema's generic string type.

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 pair, 'Validate and summarize,' with a clear resource: a local CSV or JSON metadata export from check.sql. It is distinguishable from a generic file reader, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool explain_rule.

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 by the mention of local CSV/JSON exports from check.sql, so an agent can infer when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for related tasks such as explaining rules.

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