explain_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose that EXPLAIN ANALYZE actually executes the SQL query, which may have side effects (e.g., modifying data, locking). It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or output format. The parameter description for analyze does hint at execution, but the tool-level description omits this critical behavioral trait.

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 sentence of 15 words that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. This is an example of efficient, focused writing.

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 there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format (e.g., 'returns a text plan'). More critically, it omits the side-effect of execution when using ANALYZE. For a moderately complex tool with potential destructive behavior, this is a significant gap. The description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds the PostgreSQL EXPLAIN context and the purpose of debugging, but these do not significantly enhance the semantic understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 verb (Get), the resource (query execution plan), and the mechanism (PostgreSQL EXPLAIN / EXPLAIN ANALYZE). It explicitly ties the tool to debugging performance bottlenecks, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_query (data retrieval) and suggest_indexes (index recommendations).

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 implies usage for performance debugging ('to debug performance bottlenecks'). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for read queries without performance concerns) nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. Usage context is present but not fully elaborated.

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