db_exe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions only that it returns JSON, but doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether writes are possible), security implications, error behavior, or timeout handling. The max_rows parameter hints at timeout concerns, but the description fails to explain this context.

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, extremely concise and front-loaded. It contains no redundant information and every word contributes to the core meaning. This is an ideal size for such a clear-cut tool.

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?

Executing arbitrary SQL is a high-complexity operation with significant potential for side effects and errors. Despite having an output schema (not provided in context), the description lacks crucial information like whether DDL/DML are allowed, read-only vs. write support, authentication requirements, or how errors are returned. The minimal description is inadequate for the risk level.

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 parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (execute SQL) and the output format (JSON string). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function unambiguous. With no sibling tools provided, distinction isn't necessary, so it satisfies the 5-level criterion.

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 alternatives, nor any context about appropriate use cases. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios.

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