workload_parse_statements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description does not contradict that. It adds the meaningful behavioral detail that ``-- name:`` / ``-- per_minute:`` hint lines set statement name and rate, which is real parsing behavior beyond the annotations. It stops short of explaining what happens with malformed hints, empty text, or what the parsed output contains.

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?

It is short – essentially one sentence with a parenthetical – so it is concise. However, it is not well front-loaded: the leading content is UI-origin context rather than the tool's contract, and the backtick-heavy syntax makes the single sentence harder to parse than its length warrants.

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?

For a parsing tool with two parameters, one required, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is thin. It never explains the return value, what the hint-line grammar fully supports, or how the ``per_minute`` parameter interacts with per-statement hints, so an agent cannot confidently call it or interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains ``per_minute`` only derivatively, noting that hint lines set the rate "else ``per_minute``", which barely clarifies the parameter's role and default of 60. The required ``sql`` array parameter and its expected format (array of strings, one per statement?) are never described.

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?

States it parses workload statements from SQL text, which is a specific verb+resource. But the sentence is grammatically tangled and the purpose is framed largely in terms of UI origins ("the SQL Editor's '→ Workload'", "the chat's 'Add to workload'") rather than a clear contract. It's distinguishable from siblings like workload_run or workload_list, but only loosely.

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 explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of the SQL Editor and chat contexts hints at where the input comes from, but it never says when an agent should call this versus workload_define, workload_run, or workload_from_history. Nothing routes the agent to an alternative.

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