jazz_query

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

Even with readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: operator objects (gt, contains, in), AND-combining of conditions, lack of OR support, and magic column capabilities. It also warns 'This is not SQL', which prevents misuse. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then essential details on operators, limitations, and non-SQL nature. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity and absent output schema, the description covers the critical aspects of querying behavior and parameters. It could mention return value shape or pagination, but the existing detail on where and limitations makes it largely self-sufficient for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'where' parameter semantics (scalars vs operators, AND-only logic) and notes magic columns for select/filter. However, it does not elaborate on select, orderBy, limit, or offset semantics beyond their schema names, leaving some gaps.

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 'Query a Jazz table through Jazz's native query builder'—a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jazz_get_row by indicating its query-builder nature and explicitly saying 'This is not SQL', which differentiates it from SQL-based query tools.

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 usage for querying with structured conditions but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like jazz_get_row or when not to use it. It provides no 'use this when' guidance, but the query semantics are described, offering implied context.

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