aletheia_safe_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool can audit or execute and detects specific unsafe SQL patterns, which is useful, but it does not say what happens when an unsafe query is detected (block, warn, audit report), whether execution can mutate data, or what the response looks like.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then specific safety detections. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Although the parameter schema is fully described, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the ambiguity between 'audit' and 'execute' modes, the default behavior, or the result format. Since this tool can have side effects (executing a query), an agent lacks enough context to know exactly what will happen when it invokes it.

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 both 'query' and 'database_type' documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that this is a database query, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb phrase ('Audit or execute a database query') and resource type (SQL), then names the concrete safety checks it performs (destructive DDL, unbounded DML, privilege tampering). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling aletheia tools that target mandates, bash, telemetry, and interception.

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 use for safely auditing or executing SQL queries but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over an alternative or mention any exclusion criteria. An agent can infer the domain from the name and context, but there is no comparative timing or selection guidance.

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