run_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly indicates the tool executes arbitrary SQL, includes DML/DDL, returns results, and clarifies that max_rows only truncates returned rows without limiting statement processing. It stops short of explicitly warning that arbitrary DDL/DML may be destructive or require elevated permissions, though this is strongly implied.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, routing guidance second, then a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description is complete for an arbitrary-SQL tool of this complexity. It covers scope, exclusions, parameter behavior, and output-truncation semantics. An output schema exists to define return values, and sibling-tool differentiation is handled explicitly, so an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: sql is 'the statement to execute,' database defaults to the connection's configured database, and max_rows 'truncate[s] returned rows' without affecting how many rows the statement processes. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the sparse schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run one arbitrary SQL statement against SingleStore and return the results.' It also distinguishes itself from pipeline-specific tools by explicitly listing what types of SQL it is for versus what should go to sibling pipeline tools.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for SELECT/DML/DDL that isn't pipeline-specific.' It also names the excluded category and gives a reason to prefer alternatives: pipeline tools 'validate the statement type and are easier to call correctly.'

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