yearning_rollback_sql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context—that the SQL is generated before execution—but does not disclose additional traits such as whether rollback SQL may be unavailable or any permission requirements. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and immediately providing the corresponding API. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 retrieval tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, generation timing, and API mapping. Minor gaps exist, such as not mentioning potential absence of rollback SQL, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already describes work_id as '工单号' and response_format with enum/default values. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond echoing the work order concept. At 50% schema coverage, the description is not required to fully compensate, but it also adds minimal parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: retrieving rollback SQL for a work order (获取工单的回滚 SQL). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context '用于误操作回退' distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_query or sql_check.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to fetch rollback SQL that was generated by the system before execution, for reverting accidental operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is sufficiently clear.

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