mssql_monitor_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does convey a read-only, current-state operation through 'Get' and 'real-time', but it omits specifics such as connection requirements, how the include flags alter behavior, what metrics are returned, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to scan and contains no filler. Brevity comes at the expense of substance, but that is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness problem.

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?

The tool has seven parameters, a nested alertThresholds object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only restates the basic monitoring purpose. It does not explain return data, parameter effects, or prerequisites, so an agent cannot confidently predict behavior from this definition alone.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not compensate for the low 43% schema description coverage. The seven parameters, including includeLocks, includeTables, includeQueries, includeReplication, and alertThresholds, receive no explanatory help from the description.

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 action ('Get') and a resource ('SQL Server database'), and the qualifier 'real-time monitoring information' gives a clear purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with mssql_analyze_database or mssql_debug_database, and 'monitoring information' remains somewhat generic.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like mssql_execute_query, mssql_analyze_database, or mssql_execute_sql. The phrase 'real-time' implies operational monitoring, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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