run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it performs write operations (executes SQL, materializes data models), connects to a database, and follows a dependency order. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., data overwriting), error handling, or runtime characteristics like timeouts.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable context about connectivity, materialization, and execution order without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by combining some ideas, but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (a database execution tool with no annotations or output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and how it operates, but lacks details on outputs (e.g., success/failure indicators, logs), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools like 'test' or 'compile'. This is minimally viable for understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action and context. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 the specific action ('executes compiled sql model files'), target ('against the current target database'), and mechanism ('using the specified materialization strategies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'compile' (which prepares models) or 'test' (which validates them) by focusing on execution.

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 implies usage by describing the tool's function and order of operations ('Models are run in the order defined by the dependency graph'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build' (which may combine run and test) or other siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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