jfrog_execute_aql_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions AQL supports 'complex criteria, sorting, pagination, and more,' which hints at functionality, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This is inadequate for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. The second sentence elaborates on AQL's capabilities without redundancy. However, it could be more concise by integrating the elaboration into the first sentence or omitting generic praise like 'powerful.'

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and practical examples, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implicitly referencing parameters like 'sorting' and 'pagination' without explaining them. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Execute an Artifactory Query Language (AQL) query to search for artifacts, builds, or other entities in JFrog Artifactory.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('AQL query'), and target ('JFrog Artifactory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jfrog_list_repositories or jfrog_get_artifacts_summary by focusing on query execution rather than listing or summarizing.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions AQL's capabilities but does not compare it to other search or listing tools in the sibling set, such as jfrog_list_builds or jfrog_get_artifacts_summary, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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