explain_sql

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates no mutation, but the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., no mention of error handling, performance impact, or interpretation of the plan).

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?

Description is short and includes structured Args/Returns, making it easy to parse. It wastes no words, though the Returns section could be more concise.

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 tool returns an execute plan, but the description does not elaborate on its format or interpretation. Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description is sparse and lacks sufficient context for understanding the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. The docstring style 'Args' section provides basic explanations ('The ID of the RDS instance') that add minimal value beyond the parameter names, but do not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'show sql execute plan', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like query_sql (runs queries) and show_create_table (shows table schema).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_sql or describe_slow_log_records. The description does not provide context for selection.

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