sqlquery_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the list is user-scoped ('当前用户可访问的'), implying authorization-based filtering, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or whether the tool triggers any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by two lines for parameter semantics. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It specifies the user-scoped nature and filtering options. However, it could clarify what constitutes a 'query instance' to avoid ambiguity.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: db_type filters by database type (comma-separated values like mysql,redis) and type filters by instance type. While it doesn't list all valid values, it provides meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool lists query instances accessible by the current user. It uses a specific verb ('获取列表' - get list) and resource ('查询实例' - query instances), and distinguishes from siblings like sqlquery_resources or sqlquery_execute by focusing on instance enumeration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sqlquery_resources or instance_list. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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