query_postgresql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc., covering safety aspects. The description adds the read-only mode context ('只读模式') and specifies SQL query constraints ('仅支持SELECT等只读操作'), which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits, error handling, or output format.

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 (6 required parameters for database queries) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the read-only nature and PostgreSQL focus, but doesn't explain return values, error cases, or connection handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 ('执行PostgreSQL数据库查询') and resource ('PostgreSQL数据库'), specifying it's for read-only operations. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning PostgreSQL specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other database types like MySQL or 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 PostgreSQL read-only queries but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (query_mssql, query_mysql, query_oracle). No alternative tools or exclusions 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.