cms_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies read-only via SELECT examples but never states whether DML is allowed, what permissions are required, whether queries are injectable/sandboxed, or how pagination behaves despite page/pagesize existing. It only partially discloses the core behavior (arbitrary query capability).

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then two compact, concrete examples that earn their place by illustrating syntax the schema cannot express. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

The existence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and the examples make the query syntax usable. However, pagination semantics and behavioral constraints (read-only, permissions, limits) are unaddressed, leaving an agent with a capable-looking but under-specified tool.

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% across all 3 parameters. The examples give real value for the 'query' parameter (table names and SELECT syntax), but 'page' and 'pagesize' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two-thirds of the inputs unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Executes an arbitrary SQL-like query) and the exact resource (the CMS repository tables, named explicitly). This clearly differentiates it from the many narrow getters in the sibling list, which all read one specific resource type.

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 examples show what a query looks like, but nothing states when to use this generic query tool vs. the dedicated siblings (get_users, get_documents, get_doc_details). There is no guidance on preferring specific tools when they exist, no read-only/write restriction statement, and no mention of performance or cost tradeoffs.

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