execute_sql_on_virtual_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job describing security constraints, query restrictions, and the return format (query results with column names, typed values, row count, column metadata, execution status). It also warns about credential handling and query sanitization. The main gap is lack of information about error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, security warning, args, returns). It's appropriately sized for a tool with security implications. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the security warning section is quite detailed. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 complexity (SQL execution with security implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential aspects. It explains the purpose, security constraints, and return format. The main gaps are incomplete parameter documentation and lack of error handling information, but for a tool without structured metadata support, it's reasonably complete.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description documents two parameters (virtual_workspace_id and sql_query) but omits the three other parameters (username, password, ctx) that appear in the input schema. While it adds value for the documented parameters, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 SQL operations on a virtual (starter) workspace and receive formatted results.' It specifies both the action (execute SQL) and the target resource (virtual workspace). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'execute_sql' tool, which appears to be a similar operation but possibly on different targets.

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 explicit usage guidelines with the security warning section. It clearly states 'ONLY USE SELECT statements or queries that don't modify data' and lists prohibited operations (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, DROP, CREATE, ALTER). This gives clear boundaries for when to use this tool versus alternatives that might modify data.

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