workbench-mcp

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 'Execute' which implies a write operation, but doesn't clarify if this is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on execution (e.g., side effects, transaction handling). For a database execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Execute PostgreSQL functions or procedures') and adds key capabilities ('with optional parameters and result limiting'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (executing database procedures with parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical context like safety, authentication needs, or differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for confident use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional parameters and result limiting', which loosely maps to the 'parameters' and 'max_rows' parameters, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., how parameters map to SQL), constraints, or provide examples, leaving the schema to do most of the work.

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 action ('Execute PostgreSQL functions or procedures') and the resource ('PostgreSQL functions or procedures'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'exec_function_preview' or 'execute_readonly_sql', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 like 'exec_function_preview' or 'execute_readonly_sql'. It mentions optional parameters and result limiting, but this is more about capabilities than usage context. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites stated.

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