execute_hg_select_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes SELECT SQL queries, implying read-only operations, but does not cover critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Execute SELECT SQL to query data from Hologres database.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. This makes it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 database querying, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., result sets, error messages), performance implications, or security considerations. For a tool that interacts with a database, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'The (SELECT) SQL query to execute in Hologres database.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as query syntax examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Execute SELECT SQL to query data from Hologres database.' It specifies the verb ('Execute SELECT SQL'), resource ('Hologres database'), and action ('query data'), which is precise. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'execute_hg_select_sql_with_serverless', which likely serves a similar purpose but with different execution context, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'execute_hg_select_sql_with_serverless' or 'execute_hg_dml_sql', leaving the agent without context for selection. This lack of usage instructions reduces its effectiveness in guiding tool invocation.

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