Convert SQL Dialect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool converts 'read-only SQL', which implies a restriction to SELECT statements, but does not confirm this or explain the conversion process. It also mentions 'documented limitations' without detailing them, obscuring potential failures or edge cases. The tool's behavior regarding loss of information or unsupported syntax remains unclear.

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 sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices important details for brevity. While conciseness is valued, the description lacks critical information that could be included without excessive length, such as listing the parameters or briefly explaining limitations. It earns a 3 as it is short but not efficiently informative.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to handle unsupported SQL features. The lack of guidance on when to choose this over ob_rewrite_sql or other query tools leaves the agent underinformed. The description covers only the core purpose but misses a comprehensive overview.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining each parameter's meaning. However, it only mentions 'read-only SQL' and does not describe the role of 'profile', 'sourceMode', or the required 'targetMode'. For example, 'profile' is optional but its purpose (e.g., conversion profile or tuning) is omitted. The enums for sourceMode and targetMode are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their function. This is a significant gap for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 action (convert) and the resource (read-only SQL) and the context (between OceanBase MySQL and Oracle modes). It explicitly mentions documented limitations, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ob_rewrite_sql, which might also modify SQL. The verb 'convert' is specific enough for a unique purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'read-only SQL' but does not clarify whether it only works on SELECT statements or what the limitations are. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The phrase 'with documented limitations' hints at constraints but does not elaborate, leaving the agent without clear usage boundaries.

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