arango_query

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, implying potential mutations, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond this. It doesn't explain that AQL queries can be read-only or include writes, what permissions are needed, potential side effects, or error handling. With annotations covering only the read/write hint, the description adds minimal context, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Execute an AQL query', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence is necessary to convey the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured for its brevity.

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 complexity of executing arbitrary AQL queries, the lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how results are structured, which is critical for a query tool. With no output schema and only basic annotations, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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%, with clear documentation for 'query' and 'bindVars' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of AQL syntax or how bindVars are used. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Execute an AQL query' states the action (execute) and resource (AQL query), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like arango_insert or arango_update, which also execute database operations but with different intents. The description is vague about what type of execution this involves (e.g., read vs. write queries).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for arbitrary AQL queries, while siblings like arango_insert or arango_update are for specific operations, or that it might be preferred for complex queries. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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