bw_get_query

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it tries the active version first and falls back to the inactive version if not found. It also explains the two output formats ('text' default compact human-readable, 'raw' full parsed JSON). With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well, though it doesn't mention error behavior or whether the fallback is silent.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the contents and format options. Every sentence adds information, though the long enumeration of structure member properties could be slightly trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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?

For a read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool returns, the format options, and the version fallback behavior. It doesn't describe the exact structure of the 'raw' JSON output, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical, and the description's detail compensates.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context for the format parameter by explaining what 'text' and 'raw' produce, but this largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions. The query_name parameter is straightforward and the description's example adds marginal value.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('BW Query definition') and enumerates the detailed contents (variables, filter, layout, measures, exceptions, cell definitions, structure member properties). It clearly distinguishes this read tool from sibling tools like bw_create_query, bw_update_query_layout, and bw_query_data, which perform different operations on queries.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to read a query definition, including its structure member properties and planning settings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the detailed scope and the format options give clear context. Sibling names like bw_query_data (data retrieval) and bw_update_query_* (modification) provide implicit differentiation.

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