explain_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that setting 'analyze' to true actually executes the query, which is a significant behavioral trait with potential side effects. It also omits any statement about read-only nature or return format.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and delivers all essential purpose information with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers both parameters, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps: the description does not explain the side effect of EXPLAIN ANALYZE or describe what the returned plan looks like. It is adequate but not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the parameters 'sql' and 'analyze' are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 ('Execute EXPLAIN') and resource ('a SQL query'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the diagnostic outputs (cost estimates, join strategies, index usage). It unambiguously identifies what this tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect query planner cost estimates, join strategies, and index usage. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools (e.g., read_query, execute_query) are implicitly distinct.

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