mssql_index_fragmentation

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

The description goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by explaining that it generates ready-to-run ALTER INDEX statements (not executing them), suggests ONLINE=ON on supported editions, and excludes small indexes. No contradictions with 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 two sentences long, clearly structured. The first sentence covers core functionality and thresholds; the second provides details on output and edge cases. No unnecessary words.

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 description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it (input parameters), what it produces (ALTER INDEX statements), and important edge cases (small indexes). Given the simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, read-only), it is complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of minPageCount (harmless fragmentation below threshold) and the format options. This enriches the meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 it analyzes index fragmentation and recommends maintenance actions with specific thresholds (REBUILD ≥30%, REORGANIZE 5-30%, OK <5%). It also mentions generating ALTER INDEX statements and excluding small indexes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mssql_analyze_indexes or mssql_performance_health.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to check fragmentation and get maintenance scripts) and includes thresholds. It implicitly excludes small indexes via minPageCount, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like mssql_analyze_indexes. However, the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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