explain_sql

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so for the most important trait: the operation is read-only and write/DDL statements are rejected. This tells the agent there are no mutation side effects, though it does not discuss permissions, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, each carrying essential information: the core purpose and a critical safety constraint. It is front-loaded and has no filler.

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 is appropriate for a small tool and an output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, it is not fully complete for invocation because the `source` parameter's semantics are missing and there is no guidance on query size, dialect, or limitations beyond DDL rejection.

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 compensate, but it only hints at the `sql` parameter ('SQL statement'). The required `source` parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a datasource ID, a connection name, or some other identifier.

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 a specific action ('Explain') and object ('read-only SQL statement'), and immediately restricts the accepted input by excluding write/DDL. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which deal with health, data sources, tables, DAGs, logs, and runbooks.

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 phrase 'Explain a read-only SQL statement' implies the intended use: analyzing queries. The rejection of write/DDL statements provides a clear when-not-to-use boundary, but the description does not name a preferred alternative or state conditions for choosing it over nearby tools.

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