execute_sql_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions execution of PL/pgSQL and multi-statement scripts, but fails to describe side effects, permissions, error handling, or transactional behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.

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 lacks an output schema, so the description should explain return values or error behavior. It does not. Given the complexity of SQL execution and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: it merely restates that 'sql' is raw SQL content and 'filename' is optional for logging. It does not clarify format or constraints.

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's purpose: executing SQL file content including PL/pgSQL blocks and multi-statement scripts. It uses specific verb and resource ('execute SQL file') and distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_sql' (likely single statements) and 'execute_rls_sql' (row-level security).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like 'execute_sql' and 'validate_sql' but no explanation of when to prefer one over the other. The description only implies it's for file-based SQL.

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