explain_query

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly notes that the tool executes EXPLAIN ANALYZE, which runs the query, but does not disclose potential performance impact or that it is read-only. The lack of side-effect or safety caveats limits transparency.

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 concise sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and examples of insights. It could mention that the output is an execution plan (though implied) and caution about query execution cost.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'query' parameter. The description adds context about EXPLAIN ANALYZE but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs EXPLAIN ANALYZE on a SQL query and lists specific performance insights (index usage, scans, costs). It distinguishes from siblings like run_sql (execution) and validate_sql (syntax) by focusing on performance analysis.

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 understanding query performance but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for non-SELECT queries or when execution cost is high). No alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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