Find SQL Usages

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a static index and does not execute SQL or read files, implying safety and speed. However, it omits limitations (e.g., index must exist) and does not mention idempotency or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function. Every word adds value with no repetition or fluff. Highly concise and clear.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to construct the sqlIndex parameter or how filtering with table/column works. An AI agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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%. The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., table, column, sqlIndex, maxResults). It fails to add meaning beyond the input schema, which is insufficient for an AI to know how to use the parameters correctly.

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 finds project SQL usages from a static index without executing SQL or reading files. It differentiates from other find tools like ob_find_columns or ob_find_recent_rows by specifying the data source (static index) and non-invasive behavior.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ob_analyze_change_sql_impact, ob_find_columns). The description implies it's lightweight and safe, but does not state when to prefer it or exclude other tools.

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