veto_query_advisor

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms it returns analysis outputs, consistent with read-only behavior. Adds detail about the types of outputs produced, which goes beyond 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?

Single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function and outputs. No superfluous information.

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 and the presence of annotations and complete schema descriptions, the description adequately explains inputs and outputs. It lacks mention of any required database connection or prerequisites, but it is still sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 100%, and the description clarifies that the query parameter can be a SQL query or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. However, this is already evident from the schema description. The description does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it accepts SQL queries or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output and returns specific outputs like rewrite suggestions, CREATE INDEX statements, N+1 detection, and index risk assessment. Distinct from sibling tools like veto_a11y_advisor or veto_code_review.

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?

Not explicitly stated when to use vs alternatives. The description implies use for SQL query optimization but lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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