run_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool executes queries and returns results, but doesn't specify whether this is read-only or can modify data, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what format the results come in, or any error conditions. For a general query execution tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Chinese/English mix slightly affects readability. The structure helps the agent understand inputs and outputs, but could be more polished with consistent language.

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 general query execution tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what Cypher queries are appropriate, what database/system is being queried, what security implications exist, or what the result format looks like. Given the complexity of executing arbitrary queries and the rich sibling tool context, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters (query and parameters) with their purposes, which adds value beyond the schema that has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide examples of valid Cypher queries, explain the parameter dictionary format, or give guidance on query construction. With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description does the minimum to compensate but could provide more practical guidance.

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: '執行Cypher查詢並返回結果' (Execute Cypher query and return results). This specifies both the action (execute query) and the resource (Cypher query results), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which appear to be more specific pre-defined queries rather than general query execution 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools listed. Given that all siblings appear to be specific pre-defined queries for security/Active Directory scenarios, this tool seems to be a general-purpose query executor, but this distinction isn't mentioned. There's no indication of when to use this versus the more specific tools.

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