archery_query_tenant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that when tenant is empty the tool returns the first 100 tenants, implying a limit. It also details site and instance configuration behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions, nor does it cover error behavior or rate limits. The provided behavioral insight is useful but incomplete.

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 concise, with the purpose and default behavior in the first sentence. Subsequent lines add environment details and a note on exclusivity. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy. Slightly more could be trimmed, but it efficiently conveys critical information.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and multiple siblings, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and environment configuration for site/instance. It misses the db parameter's purpose and does not explain prerequisites or error cases. It is adequate for basic usage but leaves the db parameter ambiguous.

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 must compensate. It explains the tenant parameter's effect (default listing behavior), and provides detailed aliases and meanings for site and instance. The db parameter is not explained, leaving a gap. Overall, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for three of four parameters.

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 queries tenant information from hpfm_tenant, with specific behavior when tenant is empty (lists top 100). It distinguishes itself from siblings like archery_query and general sql-ops-mcp by being a dedicated multi-tenant query tool, which is a specific resource and verb.

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 tenant queries and provides environment context (site and instance aliases). It mentions this is a Pangu exclusive capability not covered by sql-ops-mcp, which differentiates usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the exclusivity note. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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