workbench-mcp

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 is 'read-only' and supports 'temporary tables within the session', which hints at safety and scope. However, it lacks critical details: whether it requires an active session, what happens on errors, rate limits, or output format. For a SQL execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 functionality ('Execute read-only SQL batches') and adds a key feature ('with support for temporary tables within the session'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (SQL execution with parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a feature (temporary tables), but misses behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage context. The presence of an output schema helps by documenting return values, but doesn't fully compensate for other gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'SQL batches' and 'temporary tables', which loosely relates to the 'sql' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'max_rows' parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving both parameters poorly understood.

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 read-only SQL batches with support for temporary tables within the session.' It specifies the verb ('Execute'), resource ('read-only SQL batches'), and a key capability ('support for temporary tables'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'preview_query' or 'exec_function_preview', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It implies this tool is for read-only SQL execution with temporary tables, but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like 'preview_query' or 'exec_function_preview', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., session requirements) or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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