sql_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses output-shaping behavior (indentation, uppercase keywords, column alignment) and supported SQL dialects, which is sufficient for a pure formatter. It does not explicitly state that the tool returns the formatted string without executing the query, but the verb 'format' strongly implies a transformation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with the relevant formatting details and supported dialects. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, transformation behavior, and supported dialects, which is enough for a low-complexity formatter. The main gap is the absence of any explicit statement about the return value or that no SQL execution occurs, but given the tool's nature and the fully documented parameters, this is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description only loosely echoes parameter behaviors (indentation, uppercase, alignment) and adds no new detail about defaults, dialect handling, or edge cases beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Format and prettify SQL queries,' and lists concrete transformations (indentation, uppercase keywords, aligned columns). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like query_build or sql_explain.

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 intended use case is clear: when an agent needs to format/prettify SQL. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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