archery_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It explicitly discloses that the operation is '只读' (read-only) and imposes a 5000-row maximum, which are key behavioral traits. However, it leaves '受限' (restricted) vague and does not mention potential errors or authentication requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes essential information: execution type, read-only nature, single-query scope, and row limit. It is highly efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, so the description must cover more ground. It does cover the read-only constraint and row limit, and an output schema exists to explain return values. Yet it lacks parameter-level guidance and sibling differentiation, leaving the description merely adequate, not complete.

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 for parameter meanings. It mentions a 5000-row limit, vaguely related to the `limit` parameter, but does not explain `instance_name`, `database`, `schema`, `sql`, or the actual use of `limit`. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 '执行单条受限只读查询；最多返回 5000 行' clearly states the tool executes a single restricted read-only query with a 5000-row limit. The specific verb '执行' and resource '查询' combined with the constraints distinguish it from sibling tools like archery_export_query, which likely handles larger or exported results.

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 gives clear usage context: use for a single, read-only query capped at 5000 rows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to prefer archery_export_query, so it falls short of a 5.

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