Execute SQL

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

The description discloses that results are limited to max 1000 rows inline and as_layer registers a new layer with optional geometry_field. However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what happens on errors, or permissions needed. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but leaves 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It could be better structured with bullet points for parameters, but the density is acceptable given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format for inline results, default values, or the effect of uid_field. The tool is complex and needs more detail to be fully usable.

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 must explain parameters. It covers as_layer, geometry_field, and layers, but omits query, uid_field, and layer_name. The query parameter is implied but not defined. This forces the agent to infer syntax and meaning.

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 executes SQL across loaded layers via a virtual layer, specifying the key capability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only SQL execution tool.

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 implies usage through mention of referencing layers by name and as_layer behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use inline vs as_layer, or constraints on SQL statements. No alternatives are discussed, though it is unique among siblings.

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