sql

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses 'read-only', which is the key safety trait, but says nothing about query restrictions, row/limit caps, error behavior, or whether arbitrary SQL is permitted against the graph.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the crucial 'Read-only' qualifier and the subject are front-loaded before the table inventory. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the table list gives solid orientation. Still, for a generic 3-parameter escape-hatch query tool the description omits build/limit semantics and any guidance on query scope or limits.

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. Listing tables and key columns (e.g. xrefs(insn_va, func_va, dst, kind)) meaningfully aids constructing the query parameter, but the 'build' and 'limit' parameters are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only SQL over the build graph') and enumerates the queryable tables, so an agent knows exactly what capability this exposes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from specialized siblings like find, xrefs_to, or function_info that cover overlapping data.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. With siblings such as find, xrefs_to, class_info, and callgraph covering similar territory, the description never explains when to reach for raw SQL versus those targeted tools, leaving that choice entirely to inference.

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