super_test_compat

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 mentions the tool tests queries against multiple versions to detect breaking changes, but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it runs queries sequentially or in parallel, what output format to expect, error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (testing queries across versions) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure indicators, error details per version), behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools. While concise, it falls short of providing enough context for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('query' and 'versions'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't provide additional context like example queries, version format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already 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 tool's purpose: 'Test a query against multiple SuperDB versions to detect syntax breaking changes.' It specifies the verb ('test'), resource ('query'), and objective ('detect syntax breaking changes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'super_query' or 'super_validate', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implied usage context with 'Useful for migration testing,' suggesting when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'super_query' (for single-version queries) or 'super_validate' (for validation without version testing), and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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