mssql_performance_health

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description expands on what is read (wait stats, memory, workload) and adds behavioral details like filtering benign waits and offering recommendations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence includes all necessary details without excessive verbosity. Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return categories (wait stats, memory, workload, recommendations). References sibling tools for further action. Complete for a summary health check.

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?

Single parameter (response_format) with 100% schema coverage; description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly identifies it as an overall performance health check, listing specific areas (wait stats, memory, workload, recommendations). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning rule-based recommendations that reference other tools like mssql_find_blocking.

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?

Implies usage for an overall health check. Provides context by referencing sibling tools for specific scenarios (e.g., LCK_M → mssql_find_blocking). Does not explicitly state when not to use or provide exclusions, but context is clear.

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