queryLint

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by listing the specific problem categories it reports (unknown objects, SELECT *, conditionless joins, etc.) and reiterates that it does not execute the SQL, which is consistent with the 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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the checks. It is efficient and well-structured, though the long list of issue types adds length without being verbose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and a key alternative. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the lack of parameter explanations (especially 'schema') and the absence of any prerequisite or connection context leave gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33% (only 'connection' has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'sql' or 'schema' parameters, nor their relationship. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter-level guidance.

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 ('Review'), a specific resource ('authored SQL'), and a clear scope (advisory metadata and indexing problems). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not execute the SQL, and names validateQuery as a specific alternative.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not condition ('use validateQuery when database-driver acceptance is the question') and implicitly narrows its use case to advisory checks. It does not cover all sibling distinctions, but the provided exclusion is clear and useful.

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