explain_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The term 'guarded' is vague and does not specify what protections exist (e.g., read-only, permission requirements, allowed tables list). Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently, though some behavioral details could be added without significant verbosity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return format, side effects, prerequisites, or explain the 'guarded' mechanism, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as 'EXPLAIN SELECT query.' The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond that, but coverage is 100%, so the 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 action ('Run'), the specific SQL operation ('EXPLAIN SELECT query'), and the constraint ('against allowed tables'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like run_readonly_query and describe_table.

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 the tool is for EXPLAIN queries only, with the word 'guarded' hinting at restrictions. While not explicit about when not to use it or naming alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear enough.

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