run_sql

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses preview vs. materialization behavior and the creation of a provenance manifest. It doesn't mention overwrite semantics or failure behavior, but annotations already flag destructive potential.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and syntax focus; the second efficiently distinguishes the two execution modes. Well front-loaded.

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 covers both parameters, preview limits, output format, and provenance, which is strong for a SQL runner. Minor omissions like error handling and exact path constraints are acceptable given the annotations and output schema.

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 carries the burden for parameters. It meaningfully explains both query (spatial SQL dialect/functions) and output_path (preview vs. GeoParquet materialization), going beyond raw names.

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 runs spatial SQL using DuckDB dialect with ST_* functions and file-reading helpers, giving a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like run_operation, but the raw SQL scope is evident.

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 clear conditional usage: omit output_path for preview rows or provide a .parquet output_path for full materialization. It gives actionable context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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