query_mssql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the read-only mode context ('只读模式'), which reinforces but doesn't significantly expand beyond annotations. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs beyond parameters, or error handling.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint ('只读模式'). It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (database querying with 6 required parameters), annotations cover safety aspects (read-only, non-destructive), but there's no output schema. The description is minimal and doesn't explain return values, error cases, or connection behavior. It's adequate but lacks depth for a tool with significant operational 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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('执行MSSQL数据库查询') and resource ('MSSQL数据库'), specifying it's for read-only operations. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning MSSQL specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other database query tools like query_mysql or query_oracle.

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 usage for MSSQL database queries in read-only mode, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_mysql or query_oracle. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the read-only constraint.

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