get_sql_query_recipes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only operation by stating 'Fetch copy-paste SQL recipes' and 'Includes the table schema.' Additional context about output content and usage is provided, which adds value beyond 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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the action ('Fetch copy-paste SQL recipes') and usage guidance. No extraneous information is included.

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 has no parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and what it includes (recipes and table schema). The sibling tools are all distinct, so no confusion arises.

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 no parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The description adequately describes the tool's function without requiring parameter details, earning the baseline score of 4.

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 tool's purpose: fetching SQL recipes for the list_work_items SQL prefix. It specifies the resource (SQL recipes) and includes context about table schema, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle work items, documents, and comments.

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 advises using this tool before writing any SQL query (document scope, custom-field, traceability) and adapting a recipe instead of hand-writing joins. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though alternatives are not explicitly named due to the unique nature of this tool.

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