execute_hg_select_sql_with_serverless

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 effectively explains the tool's purpose (executing SELECT queries with serverless resources) and its specific use case for handling memory limitation errors, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, authentication needs, or error handling beyond the memory issue.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides specific usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (executing SQL queries with serverless resources), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential context: purpose, specific use case, and differentiation from siblings. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling beyond memory limits, or performance implications, leaving some gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema by mentioning it's for 'SELECT SQL' execution, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details. This meets 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 specific action ('execute SELECT SQL to query data') and resource ('Hologres database') using 'Serverless Computing resources'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'execute_hg_select_sql' by mentioning it as an alternative for memory limitation errors, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'When the error like "Total memory used by all existing queries exceeded memory limitation" occurs during execute_hg_select_sql execution, you can re-execute the SQL with this tool.' This clearly defines the specific scenario and names the alternative tool, offering complete usage context.

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