sqlquery_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists resources but does not mention pagination, error behavior, or permissions required. The description is truthful but lacks depth.

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 and uses a docstring-like structure with clear sections (purpose, parameter list). It front-loads the main purpose. Minor redundancy (repeating parameter names) is acceptable but prevents a 5.

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 no output schema and the tool's complexity (listing hierarchical resources), the description lacks details on output format (e.g., list of names vs objects) and pagination. It is functional but not fully complete for an AI agent to anticipate the response.

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 must compensate. It adds value by explaining parameter dependencies (db_name required for table/column, tb_name for column). However, it does not specify valid values for resource_type (e.g., enum) or provide format hints, limiting completeness.

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 it lists resources (databases/tables/columns) within an instance, using the specific verb '获取' (get). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sqlquery_instances (list instances) and sqlquery_describe_table (describe table schema), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 includes parameter dependencies (e.g., db_name required for table/column, tb_name required for column), providing implicit usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like instance_table_lookup or sqlquery_execute, preventing it from scoring 5.

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