cme_mssql

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required authentication, destructive potential, or xp_cmdshell prerequisites. The agent receives no warnings about prerequisites like enabling xp_cmdshell or potential blocking.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite 15 parameters and no output schema, the description barely covers the tool's capabilities. It omits common usage patterns, parameter dependencies, expected outputs, and prerequisites. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds value by grouping query and execCmd as supported operations, but doesn't elaborate on how parameters like threads or module interact. Still, it provides useful high-level context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool executes MSSQL protocol operations, supporting SQL queries and command execution via xp_cmdshell. This specific verb and resource distinction effectively sets it apart from sibling tools like cme_smb or cme_ldap.

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 implies usage for MSSQL operations, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative approaches (e.g., modules vs direct query/execCmd). No when-not-to-use or scenario-based advice is provided.

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