mop_execute_xquery

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('Don't use for write operations (read-only!)') and describes the return format ('Raw query result as string (usually XML)'). It adds useful context about being for advanced users/debugging, though it omits potential error behavior or performance considerations.

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, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every section contributes value, with no filler.

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?

The description is fairly comprehensive for a debugging tool: covers purpose, usage guidance, read-only constraint, parameters, and return value. Given that an output schema exists, the Returns section is optional but harmless. The main gap is not explaining how this tool differs from the sibling 'sd_execute_xquery', which would complete the context.

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 description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'query' as an XQuery string and 'max_results' as the maximum number of results to return. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types, though it does not elaborate on defaults or edge cases.

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 verb ('Execute') and resource ('raw XQuery against the database'), and adds context about advanced users/debugging. However, it does not differentiate between this and the similarly named sibling 'sd_execute_xquery', so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use sections, including the important exclusion of write operations and direction to use specific tools for common operations. However, it does not name any specific alternative tools, instead referring to 'specific tools' generically.

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