sqlquery_logs

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

Without annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the tool retrieves history, with no details on read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics. 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 short and includes a parameter list, but the list repeats schema information without adding value. It is not overly verbose, but could be restructured to be more efficient by integrating parameter details into the main sentence.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format, pagination behavior, and search semantics. The current offering is inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 description should add meaning to parameters. However, it merely lists parameter names (e.g., 'start_date: 开始日期') without any semantic details like format, behavior, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the 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 explicitly states '获取 SQL 查询历史记录' (get SQL query history), clearly indicating the verb (get) and resource (SQL query history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqlquery_execute or sqlquery_instances.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or specific use cases. The description lacks any usage recommendations.

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