execute_sql

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is clear. The description adds behavioral info: single statements only, cross-database support, and avoidance of USE statements. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences long, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff.

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 (SQL execution), the description covers usage guidelines and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks any mention of output format (e.g., rows for SELECT, affected rows for DML) or error handling, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'query' parameter. The description adds practical guidance like using fully qualified names and avoiding USE statements, which enriches understanding beyond the schema's basic description.

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 executes SQL statements against MySQL server and lists supported statement types (SELECT, DML, SHOW, DESCRIBE, ad-hoc). It distinguishes from USE statements and mentions cross-database queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_schema_info, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for SELECT, DML, SHOW, DESCRIBE, and ad-hoc queries. It also provides guidance to use fully qualified names instead of USE statements and to use single statements only. This gives clear context for appropriate usage, though it doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., for metadata queries).

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