get_db_health_index_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses specific behavioral limits (returns 'top 5' unused indexes, focuses on queries >30 seconds). However, it omits safety-critical details like whether the operation is read-only, expensive to run on large databases, or if it acquires locks.

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?

Bilingual presentation is efficient for accessibility, with the core value proposition (database health diagnostics) presented immediately. The list of three specific check categories is appropriately detailed, though slightly verbose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the three specific data categories returned (redundant, poor performance, unused top 5). Could be improved by indicating the return format (table, JSON array, etc.).

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?

Tool accepts zero parameters, meeting the baseline expectation. The description appropriately implies no filtering is needed by specifying 'currently connected mysql库,' indicating it operates on the active session context without additional inputs.

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 the specific diagnostic purpose (getting MySQL index usage) and distinguishes from sibling get_table_index by emphasizing database-level health metrics (redundant, poorly performing, unused indexes) rather than table schema listing.

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?

Provides implied usage context (diagnostic/health check scenarios) by listing specific index problems it detects, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like optimize_sql or get_db_health_running, and omits prerequisites like requiring an existing database connection.

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