Execute Query

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by specifying that the query is a SELECT (implying read-only) and that output is JSON, but it does not explain details like result size limits, error handling, or potential performance impacts. This is partial transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. Two short sentences clearly state the purpose ('Execute a SELECT query') and the output format ('Returns results as JSON'), with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple, the description lacks important context such as the structure of the JSON return value, any default query limits, or how it relates to sibling tools like execute. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness, though the current description covers the core function adequately.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (sql, binds, max_rows) with descriptive text. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states, so with this high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 executes SELECT queries against an Oracle database and returns results as JSON. This provides a specific verb (Execute), a resource (SELECT query, Oracle database), and output format, making the purpose clear and distinct from siblings like ddl or explain_plan, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the similarly named 'execute' tool.

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 such as execute or list_tables. It does not mention any restrictions, prerequisites, or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and basic purpose.

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