sql_editor_assistant

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description needs to add operational context it does not: what the check actually returns, whether it is cheap or triggers a subprocess/install detection, or whether it caches. The parenthetical hints at an environment dependency but never explains the resulting behavior.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so nothing needs trimming. It is slightly under-specified rather than bloated, and the fragment phrasing is terse but front-loads the subject.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the caller gets back (a boolean? a status object?) and does not. For a capability check whose result determines whether the agent should attempt sql_editor_ask, this leaves the core contract unexplained.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 identifies the subject (SQL Editor's ability to answer questions) but is phrased as a noun clause rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says this is a status/availability check. It is distinguishable from siblings only by inference, and the parenthetical '(Claude Code installed)' is ambiguous about whether it is a cause, condition, or dependency.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus sql_editor_assistant_warm, sql_editor_ask, or sql_editor_reply. The agent is left to guess whether this is a precondition check, a health probe, or a capability query.

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