explain_sql

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool executes the query, is read-only, or has any side effects. The term 'explain' implies analysis, but the nature of the operation is not made explicit.

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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the verb and lists the key aspects without wasted words.

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 covers the tool's primary scope but omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required, but the behavioral constraints and parameter details are incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 description implicitly indicates that the 'sql' parameter is the query to explain but does not name it or describe its format. The 'max_rows' parameter is entirely absent, and with 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and clearly states the resource (referenced objects, joins, filters, aggregations, query risks). It distinguishes from siblings like query_sql (executes) and validate_sql (validates syntax).

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 implies a use case (understanding query internals and risks) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives. The context is clear from the wording but not explicit.

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