execute_query

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral gate: INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE require write mode. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only by default, what a query returns, or what side effects or permissions are involved, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds the critical write-mode caveat. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 generic SQL executor with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits expected result shape, default read-only behavior, and any explanation of how it differs from the many SQL-related siblings such as execute_batch, execute_sql_file, and explain_query. An agent does not have enough context to invoke it safely or predict outcomes.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds operation-level context about query types but no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It also does not clarify the schema mismatch where 'query' is required but only 'sql' is defined as a property.

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 uses a specific verb ('执行') and resource ('SQL 查询或数据库命令'), and enumerates supported operations such as SELECT, JOIN, aggregation, and conditional writes. It clearly defines what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like execute_script, execute_sql_file, and execute_batch, which could plausibly execute SQL in different forms.

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 that read queries are supported and that write statements depend on write mode being enabled, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose execute_query over sibling tools. It does not name alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool should be used.

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