Health snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it is scoped to the current database and that unreadable items are reported as 'unavailable' rather than omitted. This explains permission handling and output completeness, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One snapshot...') and efficiently lists the included metrics. Every clause adds information (scope, permission behavior). No wasted words or 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 moderate complexity, the presence of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what metrics are included, the scope, and how permission limitations are handled. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the results without further documentation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter 'database'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but because the schema is sufficient, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's reference to 'current database' indirectly relates to the parameter but does not enhance it.

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 produces a snapshot of database health metrics (cache hit ratio, connections, long-running statements, vacuum backlog, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('database health'), and the scope ('current database') is explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like top_queries or list_tables, which focus on narrower concerns.

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 implies usage as a one-stop health overview ('things an operator would otherwise assemble by hand'), which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when a specific metric is needed). This is a minor gap from full guidance.

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