mssql_analyze_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Analyze', which implies a read-only investigation, but it does not state whether the tool modifies anything, what it returns, what permissions are needed, or how the optional connection string behaves. The gap between the vague description and the tool's actual behavior is significant.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully informative on its own.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the analysis produces, whether it is read-only, and when to prefer it over sibling tools like mssql_monitor_database or mssql_debug_database. It does none of this, and it also omits the 'security' analysis option entirely, leaving the tool incomplete from an agent's perspective.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema already documents schema, analysisType, and connectionString, including the enum values and the --allow-tool-connection-string requirement. The description's mention of 'configuration and performance' covers only two of the three enum values and adds little beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Analyze'), a resource ('SQL Server database'), and a scope ('configuration and performance'), so an agent can tell it is an analysis tool. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like mssql_monitor_database or mssql_debug_database, and it omits the 'security' analysis type that appears in the analysisType enum.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as mssql_monitor_database, mssql_debug_database, or mssql_execute_query. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of prerequisites like the connection string flag. The available enum values hint at use cases, but the description itself does not provide selection guidance.

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