Explain Query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. '获取执行计划' conveys a read-only diagnostic action, but it does not explicitly state whether the query is executed, whether there are side effects, or any cost/performance implications beyond the purpose.

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?

One concise sentence in Chinese that front-loads the operation and purpose. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name/title.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with a documented output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what the tool does and when it is useful. It could add a note about not modifying data, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by '获取执行计划'.

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 the sql and database parameters. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the purpose, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('SQL查询的执行计划'), and adds the purpose '用于分析查询性能'. This clearly identifies the tool as an explain/plan analysis utility rather than a data-returning query tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

It explicitly states the context: analyzing query performance. It does not provide exclusions or compare itself to alternatives like query or execute_write, so it misses the explicit when/when-not guidance, but the stated purpose gives clear context.

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