parse_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (parse and return tree) but does not mention side effects, error behavior, or non-destructive guarantees. The agent is left to infer safety and failure modes.

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?

One clear sentence followed by a compact Args list. Each word earns its place, and the primary purpose is front-loaded without unnecessary detail.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core operation and parameters. It lacks usage alternatives and error behavior, but these are addressed in other dimensions, and the output schema obviates the need to describe return values.

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 has 0% description coverage with only titles 'Sql' and 'Dialect'. The description adds full meaning: 'The SQL text to parse' and 'SQLFluff dialect name, e.g. ...' with example values, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Parse' with a resource 'raw SQL string' and explicitly states it returns a parse tree. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like parse_file and lint_sql by emphasizing the raw string input and required dialect.

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 usage for raw SQL strings and requires an explicit dialect, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use. Sibling names like parse_file hint at a file-vs-string contrast, but the description itself provides no explicit guidance.

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