get_hg_execution_plan

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 'actual execution plan with runtime statistics', implying it may execute the query to gather runtime data, but does not specify if this is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or details on rate limits or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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 complexity of SQL execution analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output includes (e.g., plan details, statistics format), potential impacts (e.g., if query execution occurs), or how it differs from similar tools, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 parameter 'query' clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as query format constraints or examples. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter information.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('actual execution plan with runtime statistics for a SQL query in Hologres database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_hg_query_plan', which might be a similar tool, leaving some ambiguity in distinguishing between them.

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, such as 'get_hg_query_plan' or other execution tools like 'execute_hg_select_sql'. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions unclear for an AI agent.

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