super_query

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 the tool executes queries and returns structured results without shell escaping issues, but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a query tool with multiple parameters, this is insufficient.

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 and key benefit. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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 (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like data source handling. For a query execution tool, more context on results and limitations is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at file types ('JSON, Parquet, CSV, SUP, etc.') and the 'inline data' alternative, but does not provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a SuperDB/SuperSQL query') and resource ('on data files'), with the specific benefit of 'Returns structured results without shell escaping issues.' It distinguishes from siblings like super_db_query by mentioning SuperDB/SuperSQL and file-based queries, though not explicitly contrasting with all 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 siblings such as super_db_query or super_db_load, nor does it mention prerequisites like file accessibility or data formats. Usage is implied through the mention of 'data files' and 'inline data,' but no explicit when/when-not rules are given.

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