sql_editor_tabs

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. With no output schema, the description does add genuine value by disclosing the shape of the result — ordering, per-tab open file, unsaved-changes flag, and the active tab — which the agent could not otherwise know. It says nothing about edge cases such as an empty tab set, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

A single declarative sentence with no filler, and the most important information (tabs in order, active tab) is front-loaded. It reads more like a note about the return value than an instruction to the agent, which slightly softens it.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the main remaining burden is describing what comes back — and the description does exactly that, including the unsaved-changes flag that makes the result actionable. Missing only the when-to-use framing that would make it fully self-contained.

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 schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-collection read.

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 names a specific resource (the SQL Editor's tabs) and enumerates the payload: tabs in order, each with its open file and unsaved-changes flag, plus the active tab. It is really a return-value statement rather than an action verb, and it draws no boundary against close siblings like sql_editor_state or the sql_editor_tab_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of when an agent should call this versus sql_editor_state, sql_editor_files, or the individual tab_* mutators. The only implicit signal is that it reads rather than mutates.

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