gerar_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool does not execute SQL, which prevents an agent from assuming side effects. However, it says nothing about whether it validates the table exists in the catalog, what it returns (a string?), or error behavior. It's a bare minimum disclosure.

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 states the core purpose and a key caveat. There is no redundancy or preamble. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, costing some points for structure, but it remains highly concise.

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 two parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what the generated SELECT looks like, whether it includes a WHERE clause, or how colunas is used. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess, which is risky.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters. 'tabela' is required but its meaning is only implied by the tool name; 'colunas' is optional but the description never explains what it does (e.g., specify columns to select, default to *). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of property descriptions.

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 states a clear verb ('Gera' / generates), a specific resource ('SELECT Oracle simples de uma tabela'), and crucially adds that it does not execute SQL. This distinguishes it from siblings like gerar_sql or explicar_sql. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it doesn't.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use when you need a basic SELECT without running it' or exclude cases like joins or complex queries. The existence of siblings such as gerar_join and gerar_sql implies some selection criteria, but none are stated.

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