lint_sql

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

Discloses a limitation (some errors like trailing commas undetected) which adds value beyond name. However, without annotations, it does not confirm read-only behavior or side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences plus a bullet-like Args/Returns. First sentence front-loads purpose, second adds a key caveat. No fluff, though integration of Args could be tighter.

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?

Explains return value format, which is helpful. But missing details like what constitutes a syntax error, handling of invalid inputs, or scope (e.g., only syntax, not semantics). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section adds 'SQL query to analyze' for sql and 'Optional SQL dialect (e.g., 'mysql', 'postgres')' for dialect, providing examples. But sql parameter lacks details on input format or constraints.

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 it lints SQL queries and returns syntax errors, with a specific verb 'Lint' and resource 'SQL query'. It distinguishes from siblings that handle references and transpilation, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Only implies use for syntax checking, but no 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings like transpile_sql.

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