runQuery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions running a SQL query but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of executing SQL queries, the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimalism, it is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error scenarios, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective 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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'sqlQuery', 'rowNumber', and 'decode'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for parameter use. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'Runs a SQL query on the target system,' which clearly indicates the action (run) and resource (SQL query). However, it lacks specificity about the target system (e.g., database type) and does not differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'tableContents' or 'ddicRepositoryAccess,' making it somewhat vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'tableContents' for reading tables, 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation), there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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