analyze_db_health

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

Lists checks performed and mentions outputs issues with severity levels, but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond that (e.g., whether it's safe to run frequently, required permissions, or if any side effects occur). With no annotations, description carries the burden, and fails to fully address safety or impact.

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 with bullet-like listing of checks; no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Highly efficient.

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 comprehensive health check with no input parameters and no output schema, the description could elaborate on the output format or scope (e.g., which database/table scope). It lists checks but omits any detail on how results are structured, leaving the agent to infer. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds value by explaining what the tool does, meeting baseline for zero-parameter tools. No further param context needed.

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 states 'Run comprehensive database health checks' and enumerates specific checks (cache hit rates, connection usage, index health, etc.), differentiating from sibling tools like analyze_query_indexes which focus on specific index analysis.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative analysis tools (e.g., analyze_query_indexes, analyze_workload_indexes). Does not specify 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.