run_sql_plus_plus_query

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'query' but does not clarify whether the tool supports read-only or mutation operations (e.g., INSERT, UPDATE). No warning about side effects, permissions, or rate limits is given.

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 relatively concise, with a clear structure and an illustrative example. The example adds value, but the overall length could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, parameter usage, and a security note. However, it omits important context such as whether mutations are allowed, error handling, and pagination. An output schema exists but is not detailed here.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes that bucket_name and scope_name set the context, and named_parameters binds values to placeholders. However, it does not elaborate on the exact format or constraints for each parameter, leaving some detail lacking.

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 runs a SQL++ query on a specified scope and returns JSON objects. It explains the query syntax requirement (no prefixes). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'explain_sql_plus_plus_query', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for execution vs. explanation.

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 a best practice (use named_parameters to prevent injection) but does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document_by_id or get_schema_for_collection. There is no comparison or decision-making context.

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