Impala Query Details

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behaviors: the data source is the CM query profile, and attributes are only found within a lookback window (default 7 days), plus the include_plan size cap of 150 lines. It omits error behavior when the query is not found in the window, and any indication of cost/latency for this heavy diagnostic, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clause, then followed by a long comma-spliced enumeration of returned sections. The two parameter notes are set apart cleanly, but the bulk of the text duplicates return-value content that the output schema already supplies, so the length is not fully earned.

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?

With 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage and an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description spends nearly all its words re-describing outputs while leaving seven parameters unexplained. For a diagnostic tool whose thresholds materially change results, this leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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% across 9 parameters, and the description explains only two of them (include_plan and lookback_days). Critical inputs such as slow_seconds, planning_seconds, exec_summary_rows and memory_gb_per_node appear to be diagnostic thresholds/assumptions but are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent cannot know how they change the output.

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 first clause names a specific verb and resource — diagnosing a single Impala query using its CM profile — and enumerates the concrete diagnostic sections produced (ExecSummary, spill counters, planner warnings, recommendations). That is far more specific than the title alone and lets an agent distinguish it from impala_query_ranking or impala_query_issues_summary. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative. Usage is only implied by the required query_id parameter and by the lookback_days note that attributes are sought in the CM query list, which signals the query must be recent and already identified. An agent must infer that this is the deep-dive follow-up after a ranking or issues listing.

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