explain_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the most critical trait—that the query is not executed—which implies no side effects. However, it omits other potentially relevant details such as whether it requires any special permissions, what happens for invalid SQL, or the exact format of the returned execution plan. This meets the minimum viable threshold but leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior. There is no redundancy or filler—every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the clear statement of a read-only behavior, the description is largely complete. It might benefit from briefly noting the return format or typical use cases, but the current text covers the essential context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not leave major unknowns about when or why to use it.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'query'. The tool description adds the phrase 'SQL query' and 'execution plan', which reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new syntactic or format details beyond what the schema states. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 gets an execution plan for a SQL query, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource (execution plan for a SQL query). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling execute_query by explicitly noting it does so 'without running it', eliminating ambiguity about its function.

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 the tool should be used when the user wants a query plan without execution, which clearly separates it from execute_query. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, the context of sibling tools and the phrase 'without running it' provide clear usage context. This is slightly above baseline as the intended use case is clear from the description alone.

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