runQuery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions running a SQL query but doesn't specify whether this is read-only or mutating, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., data modification), error handling, or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have destructive potential.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 running SQL queries (potential for data mutation, security risks, etc.), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical aspects like return format, error responses, or safety warnings, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'rowNumber' or 'decode' in context, or provide examples of SQL query formatting. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.

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 doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also execute queries or interact with databases, making it somewhat vague in context. It's adequate but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., syntaxCheckCode, tableContents, tracesDbAccess), there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where runQuery is preferred. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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