explain_query

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. Importantly, it omits that EXPLAIN ANALYZE executes the query, which is a critical side effect. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, but fails to address safety or execution implications.

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 with two sentences, no filler, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning.

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 its clarity, the description is minimal. It does not mention the return format (e.g., plan in text or JSON), nor does it provide guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling analysis tools. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

While the input schema already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds value by noting that hypothetical index simulation requires the hypopg extension, providing context beyond the schema's descriptions.

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: obtaining a query execution plan. It also highlights the unique capability of hypothetical index simulation via hypopg, effectively distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like analyze_query_indexes or execute_sql. The description mentions the hypopg extension prerequisite but lacks usage context or alternatives.

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