database-query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key safety trait: mutations are allowed only if 'allow_mutation: true' is set, and it explicitly lists SQL statement types (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE). While it does not mention return formats or side effects, the mutation guard and operation scope provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides a discovery workflow step, and the third adds a safety condition. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the essential operational aspects: allowed SQL types, the 'list-tables' operation, and the mutation guard. It does not explain the return value format, but for a SQL query tool this is often implicit. The description is complete enough for an agent to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying when to use certain parameters: the 'list-tables' operation for discovery and the 'allow_mutation' requirement for mutating statements. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: "Execute SQL queries against a SQLite database (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE)." It immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., api-connector, file_read) by specifying the database context. It also mentions the two operation modes, 'query' and 'list-tables', giving a precise scope.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: "Use operation 'list-tables' to discover available tables" and "Mutation queries require 'allow_mutation: true' for safety." It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the SQL-focused purpose implies when it is appropriate, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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