analyze_db_health

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

There are no annotations, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the checks are read-only, whether they may be expensive or disruptive, what the return format is, or whether specific database privileges are required. The terse list of check types gives little insight into side effects or execution behavior.

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 extremely concise, occupying a single line while conveying the core purpose and the parameter options. It is front-loaded with the tool's domain ('Health checks') and avoids unnecessary prose. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices behavioral detail, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient input guidance by listing health check types. However, it lacks context about what the output looks like, how 'all' behaves relative to individual checks, and what the practical use cases are. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 describes 'db' but leaves 'health_type' with no description; the tool description compensates by explicitly enumerating the valid health_type values (index, connection, vacuum, sequence, replication, buffer, constraint, all). This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, even though it does not explain what each check does.

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 indicates the tool performs database health checks and enumerates the specific check types (index, connection, vacuum, etc.), which gives the agent a concrete sense of the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_workload_indexes by focusing on general health checks rather than specialized query/index analysis, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_workload_indexes or execute_sql. The list of health check types implies possible use cases, but there is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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