parse_sql

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

Annotations provide read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent hints, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying the output ('AST summary: statement count and types'), which is not covered by annotations, though it lacks details on error handling or performance characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('parse SQL') and outcome ('return an AST summary'), with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the output content, but could benefit from more detail on the AST summary format or limitations, though annotations cover safety and idempotency well.

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%, with the parameter 'sql' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'SQL string' without extra syntax or format details, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('parse SQL', 'return an AST summary') and resources ('SQL string'), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_sql or format_sql by focusing on parsing and AST summary rather than analysis, formatting, or validation.

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 implies usage for parsing SQL to get statement count and types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_sql or validate_sql. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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