explicar_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not execute the SQL, which signals a safe, read-only behavior, and 'conservadoramente' suggests cautious, non-overreaching explanations. However, it does not describe what kind of explanation is returned or how unsupported queries are handled.

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 with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the verb, the scope ('SELECT/WITH'), the cautious behavior ('conservadoramente'), and the safety constraint ('sem executá-la').

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 is simple with one parameter, so the input side is adequately covered. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the explanation looks like or what information it will contain, leaving the return value somewhat underspecified for an agent.

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 input schema only shows a single 'sql' string parameter with no description. The tool description adds meaning by restricting valid input to SELECT/WITH queries, which is valuable. Still, it does not explain expected format, dialect, or whether multiple statements are allowed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explica') and a specific resource ('consulta SELECT/WITH'), and adds a key constraint: 'sem executá-la'. This clearly distinguishes it from SQL-generating siblings like gerar_sql and gerar_select, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 phrase 'Explica conservadoramente uma consulta SELECT/WITH' implies the tool is for understanding a read-only query without running it, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is present but only implied.

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