db_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's for SELECT queries (implying read-only) and auto-adds LIMIT 1000 if absent, which is crucial for safety and performance. It doesn't cover error handling, timeout, or result format, but the auto-LIMIT detail is significant and adds value beyond basic purpose.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Execute a SELECT query'), followed by a critical behavioral detail (auto-LIMIT). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates essential information without over-explaining.

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 tool's moderate complexity (database querying), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and a key safety behavior (auto-LIMIT), but lacks details on parameter meanings, error cases, or connection requirements. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, making this adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the two parameters (connection_id, sql) at all, leaving them undocumented. However, the description implies the sql parameter through 'SELECT query' and the auto-LIMIT behavior, adding some context. Since parameters are few (2) and the tool's purpose is clear, this meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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's purpose: 'Execute a SELECT query' specifies both the verb (execute) and resource (SELECT query). It distinguishes from siblings like db_execute (likely for non-SELECT queries) and db_describe/schema (metadata tools). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what database or system it queries, which prevents a perfect score.

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 context through 'SELECT query' and the auto-LIMIT behavior, suggesting this is for read-only data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like db_execute (for writes) or db_describe (for schema info), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an established connection via db_connect. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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