explain_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'analyze performance' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is (e.g., text, JSON), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get the execution plan for a SQL query to analyze performance.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, avoids redundancy, and every word contributes meaning without waste. This makes it easy to scan and understand 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 SQL query analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'execution plan' entails (e.g., visual vs. textual), performance metrics included, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output and behavioral gaps, more detail is needed to fully inform usage.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax requirements or database context implications). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Get the execution plan for a SQL query to analyze performance.' It specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('execution plan'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'execute_query' or 'get_query_performance' by focusing on plan analysis rather than execution or metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_query_performance' or 'detect_query_bottlenecks', which might have overlapping purposes.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid SQL query), exclusions (e.g., not for actual query execution), or comparisons to siblings like 'analyze_query_performance' or 'get_optimization_insights'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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