query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully mentions parameter binding, token-efficient formatting, and protections like opcode watchdog and cell truncation. However, it does not disclose whether writes can occur when readonly=false, nor does it describe side effects, failures, or error 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by output-format variety and safety protections. No filler, no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and protective details in the description, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main missing piece is guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, which prevents a higher score.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description's mention of parameter binding and output formats is consistent but adds little meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a SQL query against a SQLite database.' It also names output formats, making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like explain or export_query, though the function is inferable.

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 intended use is implied by 'Execute a SQL query,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as explain, export_query, or schema. An agent gets no direct help choosing among sibling tools.

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