get_sql_processor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a retrieval operation (implying read-only), it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each section earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like sections enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The description covers the basic operation, parameters, and return scope adequately for a retrieval tool. However, the lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines leaves some gaps in completeness.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining that 'environment' is 'The environment name' and 'sql_processor_id' is 'SQL processor unique identifier', which helps understand what these parameters represent. However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 purpose as 'Retrieves a single SQL processor by ID', which is a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (SQL processor). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_sql_processors' by specifying it fetches a single item by ID rather than listing multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools like 'get_environment' or 'get_topic'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_sql_processor' versus 'list_sql_processors', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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