ssh_db_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does so thoroughly: read-only guarantee, exact rejection list for unsafe SQL keywords, MongoDB find behavior, collection requirement, and raw text output are all explicitly stated.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by necessary per-type restrictions and the output format, making every sentence earn its place.

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 9-parameter SSH database tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers invocation constraints, safety restrictions, the MongoDB special case, and return type. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing to inspect the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by constraining query semantics per database type and clarifying when collection is mandatory. It does not discuss auth-related parameters, but their schema descriptions already cover them.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: runs a read-only query against a remote database. The database-type branches for SELECT and find() add precision and clearly distinguish this from sibling write, import, and export tools.

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?

It establishes a clear usage context: read-only database queries, with type-specific rules such as queries must begin with SELECT and MongoDB requires the collection parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the read-only framing provides strong directional guidance.

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