query-view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'markdown result' which gives some context about output format, but fails to describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise at just 10 words in a single sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Query a view') and efficiently mentions both the optional parameter and output format. While perhaps too brief for adequate completeness, it wastes no words.

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 complexity of a database query tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond 'query', doesn't describe the expected input formats for parameters, and provides minimal context about the operation's behavior or results. The mention of 'markdown result' is helpful but inadequate for the tool's 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (3 required), the description provides minimal parameter information. It only mentions 'optional row limit' which corresponds to the 'limit' parameter, leaving the other 3 parameters (database, schema, view) completely unexplained. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, resulting in poor parameter understanding.

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 states the tool 'Query a view' which indicates a read operation on a database view, but it's vague about what constitutes a 'query' versus just retrieving data. It mentions 'markdown result' which adds some specificity about output format, but doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'execute-query' or 'describe-view'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute-query' or 'describe-view'. It mentions an 'optional row limit' which implies usage for limiting results, but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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