tm1_execute_mdx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and that results are capped, which addresses the two main risks of executing a query: side effects and unbounded output. It leaves details like default cap behavior unspecified, but the key safety traits are present.

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 a single sentence with no filler, wasted words, or repetition of the tool name. The primary action is front-loaded, and the qualifiers 'read-only' and 'capped' are attached compactly.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain both behavior and return expectations. It covers safety and capping but omits usage context, parameter details, and what the query response looks like. An agent would be uncertain about edge cases such as exceeding the cap or omitting `maxCells`.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'MDX query' semantically anchors the required `mdx` parameter, and 'capped' hints at the purpose of the optional `maxCells` parameter. However, it does not explain the expected format, defaults, or how the cap behaves, leaving significant inference to the agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') with a clear resource ('an MDX query'), and adds two scope-defining traits: read-only and capped. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/get tools, which are about retrieving administrative or metadata objects rather than executing ad-hoc queries.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tm1_get_cube_grid, or when it would be inappropriate. The read-only and capped hints imply a safe execution context, but no explicit condition, exclusion, or named alternative is provided.

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