Run Saved Query

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds 'Deterministic' and 'no KQL authoring', which align with annotations but do not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or potential side effects. Since annotations carry most of the burden, the description adds minimal value beyond what is structured.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states the primary action and resource, second adds two key behavioral traits (deterministic, no KQL authoring). Front-loaded and perfectly concise.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with good annotations and two well-described parameters, the description covers the essential: what it does, how to get the query name, and key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the output format or that results are returned, which could be assumed but is not explicitly stated. Overall sufficient but could be slightly more 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 100% with clear descriptions for name and since parameters. The description adds only marginal value: 'by name' is already implied, and 'see list_saved' helps with name provenance but does not reveal new semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 runs a previously-saved query by name, referencing list_saved for finding names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_query and search by specifying 'Deterministic - no KQL authoring', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use: when you have a saved query name and want deterministic results without writing KQL. It references list_saved for obtaining names, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like search or save_query. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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