query-documents

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the query is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any security/rate-limit implications. 'Results handling' implies some processing but is unspecified, leaving a significant gap.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity; while efficient, it could benefit from a few more words to improve understanding without becoming 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?

Given the presence of sibling tools like 'initialize-connection' and 'select-database', the description omits critical context such as dependencies, return value format, or error behavior. With no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about what 'results handling' produces, making it incomplete.

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 one parameter 'query' with a description 'The RQL query to execute'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in an average score per guidelines.

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 'Execute RQL queries with results handling' names the specific language RQL but 'results handling' is vague and does not differentiate from get-document (which also returns results) or other query-like operations. It lacks a clear scope of what 'handling' entails, making it only somewhat distinct.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'select-database' or 'get-document'. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., connection initialization) or conditions under which it should be preferred, forcing the agent to guess context.

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