get_wait_stats

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, has side effects, or what the return format looks like. The phrase 'Get' implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm safety 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by the value proposition. There is no redundancy or extraneous detail; every word 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 simple get-style tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks behavioral context (safety, return format) and does not clarify how wait stats relate to other performance diagnostics. Given the sibling ecosystem, a bit more context would help an agent decide appropriately.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) for both parameters with clear descriptions: 'top' explains default value, 'server' explains fallback behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get top server wait statistics' which clearly identifies the verb and resource, and adds the purpose of identifying performance bottlenecks. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_query_store_stats or get_server_info, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 versus other diagnostic tools (e.g., get_query_store_stats, get_table_stats). It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose this over siblings, or exclusion criteria. Usage context is only implied by the name and the note about bottlenecks, not explicit.

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