chaprola_query

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists query operations but does not state whether this is strictly read-only, how it handles limits or offsets, what happens when data is missing, or what the response format looks like. The implicit read-only nature of a 'query' is not made explicit, and no side-effect or error behavior is described.

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 immediately states what the tool does. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, creating a need for richer context. The description only lists capabilities and fails to explain required inputs, join/pivot/mercury object structures, return values, pagination, or integration with sibling tools. It is too sparse for the complexity involved.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters including nested objects. The description adds high-level feature names (WHERE, SELECT, aggregation, etc.) that map to parameters, but it does not add semantics beyond those already present in the schema. It earns the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool as a data query operation with specific capabilities (WHERE, SELECT, aggregation, ORDER BY, JOIN, pivot, Mercury scoring). It is distinct from simpler lookup tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like chaprola_search or chaprola_fetch, so it stops short of a 5.

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 chaprola_search or chaprola_sort. It does not mention prerequisites like the required project and file parameters, nor does it state any exclusions or limitations. The usage context is only implied by the word 'query'.

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