execute_sql

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

While the destructiveHint annotation indicates potential for data modification, the description does not elaborate. It fails to mention that execution may alter data, require authentication, or have side effects like creating temporary tables. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 very short (5 words) and front-loaded, which aids quick scanning. However, it sacrifices essential details for brevity. A slightly longer description with context would be more useful while still being 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description should cover safe usage, default behavior (the default 'all' is unclear), and whether it supports SELECT-only or DDL/DML. The current description leaves significant gaps, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 input schema already includes a description for the 'sql' parameter. The tool description repeats the purpose without adding new parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value is provided.

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 'Execute any SQL query' clearly states the tool's action (execute) and resource (SQL query). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_db_health or explain_query, which focus on analysis rather than execution. However, it could be more precise about the scope of supported SQL (e.g., DDL vs DML).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention scenarios to avoid (e.g., for resource-intensive queries) or prerequisites (e.g., user permissions). A brief note on appropriate contexts would improve this.

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