query_influxql

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: the query is bounded and read-only, and destructive statements like SELECT INTO are rejected. This provides essential safety information beyond the schema, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 two well-structured sentences. The first delivers the core action and constraints, the second offers usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it states the exact purpose, constraints, and when to use alternatives. The 'bounded' mention complements the maxRows parameter, and the read-only nature is explicitly stated. No crucial context is missing.

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?

Input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but that is acceptable given the 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 runs one bounded, read-only InfluxQL query against an InfluxDB 3 database. It uses a specific verb (run) and resource (InfluxQL query), and distinguishes it from query_sql by explicitly noting the tool is for InfluxQL, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance: prefer query_sql for SQL prompts, and use InfluxQL only when the user explicitly asks for InfluxQL or regex field matching. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus siblings.

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