dba_resusageSummary

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the persist parameter and that it materializes a volatile table, but it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or performance implications. The return format (besides the persist case) is not described, leaving uncertainty about the output structure.

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 structured with a clear summary followed by parameter details, which is logical. However, it is verbose because each parameter description duplicates the schema's description. This redundancy inflates length without adding value, making it less concise than ideal.

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 the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the response format for typical usage. It only addresses the persist case (volatile table name). For non-persist calls, the expected output (e.g., a table or JSON) is unspecified, leaving a significant gap in usability.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim, adding little new meaning. The introductory phrase 'broken down by specified dimensions' slightly clarifies that multiple filters can be combined, but overall value beyond schema is minimal.

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 summarizes resource usage (CPU, IO, Memory) by specified dimensions over a date range. While it effectively conveys the tool's core function, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling dba tools like dba_databaseSpace or dba_tableSpace, which focus on storage space rather than resource usage.

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 implies usage for aggregating resource metrics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for specific resource types or different scopes). There is no discussion of prerequisites or conditions that would favor this tool over others.

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