peaka_execute_query

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat safety. It adds a behavioral precondition—projectId must be known and user-confirmed—but does not describe response shape, latency, or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the workflow guidance is actionable. Every sentence earns 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 straightforward execution tool with two required string params, the description covers how to obtain both IDs and how to handle unknown projectId. It omits return-value expectations, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a blocking issue.

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?

queryId has no schema description, and the description compensates by linking it to peaka_list_queries. projectId is covered by the schema and further reinforced by the list_projects workflow. Together, both parameters receive enough semantic grounding.

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?

States a specific action—execute a saved query by ID in the Peaka project—and is distinguishable from sibling tools like peaka_execute_sql_query (ad-hoc SQL) and peaka_get_query (retrieval). The resource and mode of operation are clear.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to peaka_list_queries to obtain query IDs and to peaka_list_projects when projectId is unknown, including asking the user and remembering the choice. It does not contrast with execute_sql_query, but the given workflow is sufficient for correct invocation.

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