get_database_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does indicate that this is a read-oriented metrics retrieval operation. However, it does not add behavioral nuance such as whether metrics are pre-aggregated across the full period, whether the call can be expensive, or whether it purely reads cached data. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence: 'Get database performance metrics' leads immediately with the core action, and the following list clarifies the return envelope. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and no unnecessary ambiguity.

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 one optional, schema-documented parameter and no nested structures or required fields, the description plus schema is enough to call it confidently. It lists enough metric categories so an agent can predict the shape of the result. The main gap is not positioning it among the many sibling monitoring tools, but that concern is captured under usage guidance.

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 coverage for periodHours is 100%, including default and maximum values, so the parameter is already well documented. The description adds no detail about how periodHours shapes the metrics or whether the period is applied uniformly to every returned metric. Baseline 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 is clear about the action and resource: 'Get database performance metrics' followed by concrete categories like query stats, storage usage, cache hit ratios, and deadlocks. It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings such as get_database_status, get_slow_queries, or get_table_stats, so it is not a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_database_status, get_slow_queries, or get_connection_pools. The description omits exclusions, prerequisites, and any indication of which sibling covers narrow metrics vs overall performance.

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