overview

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

The description starts with '[READ]', disclosing the read-only nature, and states that sections are 'captured defensively so one failing probe does not sink the rest,' which reveals error-isolation behavior. Since no annotations are provided, this is valuable, though it doesn't cover permissions or performance impact.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a list of included sections, a note on error handling, and a parameter explanation. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 multi-metric scope and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the expected sections and hints at partial data via the defensive-capture note. It could be more explicit about the overall output structure, but the key information is present.

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 only defines 'target' as a string/null with default null and no description (coverage 0%). The description's Args section explains 'Target name from config; omit for the default,' fully clarifying the parameter's meaning and default behavior, thereby compensating for the schema gap.

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 purpose: 'One-shot server health snapshot' and lists the specific metrics it captures (version, flavor, uptime, connection headroom, sessions, longest query, fragmented table, replica role). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics.

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 establishes a clear context: use it for a quick, broad health check ('One-shot server health snapshot'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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